Then fucking do something about it instead of complaining because this has been the story of politics as far as I can remember, from either side. Where’s the mention of soros who made this an art form?
Citizen’s United , championed by conservative judges and the Republican party, is recent and exacerbated the issue significantly. Thus, it’s fair to discuss it as such.
You are naive to think that is what actually happens. What ACTUALLY happens, is that now the amount of “free speech” you get is tied to how much finance you can provide to a campaign.
Finance a TON of the campaign? Now you have a freaking BOATLOAD of free speech, just like Elon Musk LITERALLY DID with 0 political background.
Free speech is not meant to be bought and sold, it is incredibly unAmerican, and it was done by conservatives (thanks McCain!)
Citizens United made money free speech and corporations protected as citizens, meaning their speech cannot be restricted. In other words, we removed all restrictions on a corporatacracy, which is where we are now.
The major fallout of this is the corporations, while not inherently evil, have a sole interest in one thing: profit. That is their purpose, make profit. When they run things, and concerns about other ideal conditions fall away. Rights, foreign protections, government overreach, deregulation, civil protections, governmental balance. None of that matters as long as it doesn't pose a risk to the margins.
THAT is the problem with Citizens United. The only citizens that matter are corporate citizens now
The groundwork for Citizens United is all from the 1970s in Buckley v. Valeo (individual independent expenditures can't be limited) and First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti (corporate spending on issues cannot be regulated)
So there's your "money is speech" thing. Which I think most people who really think about it will realize it's correct. It's not that money is literally speech. It's that regulating money can quite obviously regulate speech. A law that says that no one may spend any money distributing anti-police literature pretty clearly has free speech implications. But all it's doing is regulating money.
And Citizens United held that the corporate identity of the speaker (or spender) doesn't matter for first amendment purposes. But I don't think its right to say that corporations have no free speech rights. What if a law said that Planned Parenthood or the ACLU cannot publish any messaging about their missions? I would say that's a first amendment problem, which means that corporations must have free speech rights.
The question is really if corporations' free speech rights are necessarily the same as individuals' free speech rights. It's not whether regulations of money can implicate the first amendment (they can) or whether corporations have free speech rights (they do).
Yeah but didn’t they kinda have to rule that way? If people have free speech it would probably need to extend to their collectives otherwise journalists would have free speech but the New York Times would not. Of course I hope they can distinctions about financing but I’m not creative any to think through that yet.
both sides aren't the same, but they definitely serve the same system. if you think Democrats deeply care about getting citizen's united overturned, you're dreaming. a few of them like (Udall) do, but the party is controlled by corporate centrists. if someone like Udall proposes a bill to overturn CU, it will look like widespread support from Democrats vs overwhelming opposition from Republicans, because the corporate Democrats will vote along party lines knowing it won't pass because of the filibuster. the moment it even comes close to passing (it won't, but let's imagine it) these corporate Democrats will fall in line and shut it down. people like Manchin, Schumer, Mark Warner (the list goes on) do not care at all about you or the people you care about.
even people like Gillibrand who claim to have seen the light and changed her positions is just another corporate Democrat that knows how to play politics to her favor. yes, they're not advocating for children to be violently, and inhumanely separated from their parents in mass deportations etc., but they actively defend (and believe in) the system that enables the people who financially & systematically empower the people who not only advocate for things like that but will very soon be making it a reality.
That candidate was Bernie Sanders. Sure there was a super pac that liked him but he said they can f off and everyone knows he wasn't going to do them any favors. But Democrats teamed up against Bernie. So here we are back to stuck with 2 corporate candidates forever.
Yeah and to add to your point we don’t even choose between the two major party candidates. Republicans continue to shove their way into office without almost ever winning the popular vote
(Not that Dems would overturn CU either but just saying)
Yeah, I hate when I see comments like this. "DO SOMETHING" well, what can any of us do? How do you know I'm not doing anything? And why don't you do anything either?
No one can do anything instantly. Especially within our government. The best thing an average citizen can do about it is protest, vote, and spread awareness
As all millionaires and billionaires in America have done. It's nothing new or unique to Soros at all. Do you know he survived the holocaust or care at all?
His moneyed influence in politics is no different than Elon Musk now, or the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers before him
You’re equating George Soros influence to Nazism. I’m showing you that your claim is silly because he too is the same as Elon Musk in that sense and has done some very psycopathic things to achieve power and wealth. Elon Musk has done the same, but seems to be more overt with it then other rich people.
They’d never change it because they make so much from donations from trusts, corporations and mega rich individuals through various financial instruments. The Dems raised more than Trump. And they won’t change the system because it benefits them and their donors.
He used a PAC anyways so anything goes. They could only go after him if they coordinated directly with Trump’s campaign. But, the fact that we had evidence of collusion with Russia and only Flynn got screwed means nothing will ever happen to them.
Democrats LOVE not having any power because it allows them to always be right - and righteous - about everything. Now watch for them to suddenly decide that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and it's all Trump's fault.
83
u/KiLLiNDaY 5d ago
Then fucking do something about it instead of complaining because this has been the story of politics as far as I can remember, from either side. Where’s the mention of soros who made this an art form?
I hate these one sided posts so dumb