It’s not that their speech was restricted, it was limited. Buckley v Valeo established that spending money is an expression of free speech. Do you not think that it is an issue that those with more money have more speech, therefore making us less equal and more oligarchical?
Money does not equal counsel, either, but a ban on criminal defendants spending money to hire a lawyer would likewise violate the Sixth Amendment. Money is not guns, either, but a ban on spending money to buy guns violates the Second Amendment.
@sjr: So, are you actually trying to justify the idea that the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling on Citizens United was a good thing? For who‽ The _`elite`;_ a.k.a., the American oligarchy? Or are you merely just doing nothing more than trolling for your _`shits & giggles`?_
I’ve yet to find anyone who is vocal about how “bad” this ruling is who actually knows the ruling and why it happened. It’s a testament to how ignorant and easily misled the general public is. And it’s all by design. It’s much easier to control people who don’t even understand what’s happening.
It's a horrible decision and I knew it was a horrible decision in highschool. This lady is totally misrepresenting the core problems the decision created.
@@lotusgrl444because the gov doesn't get to decide who can speak and when on campaign issues. Should Elon Musk not be allowed to talk politics a month before an election? He has outsized influence.
@@alansnyder9 the corporations he runs should not be allowed to donate millions of Dollars to influence an election as it is in their own interest as a corporation (who's only purpose by LAW is to maximize profits for shareholders) to do so. People loves should not be affected at ALL by an entity that is not a person. Simple as that.
@Cobalt_11 Elon Musk IS THE CORPORATION. Space X would be nothing without him. I'm not even talking about Twitter. Would you be against Space X putting out an ad for a Green Party candidate that said "Vote for X candidate to save the planet"? You assume that corporations want people elected so that they get more money. Maybe they want a candidate who aligns with their ideas. Like when Ben and Jerry's support Bernie Sanders. Is Bernie gonna give them some crazy ice cream kickback if he's elected?
one thing is to give a verbal opinon another is to but elected officials votes thereby greatly limiting democracy. Social media gives one a voice same as a corporate campaign. RIDICULOUS!
IDK how we dodge it. Any special interest that I liked lobby to the Congress and this rule would have screwed them because it was too poor. The only thing it sucks that a poor person with legitimate is not enough (perhaps never was) to get his policies pushed since a corporation, whose interest opposed the poor citizen, outspent that citizen through MSM and political ads.
here’s the TL:DR: Citizens United made a movie that was politically charged, and released it before an election. Since this was against the law, the government sued them. Then Citizens United sued back because they believed law was unfair, and violated their constitutional rights.
You're making this all seem hunky dory, no big deal, and it's only natural things ended up like this, but even with all that sugarcoating I couldn't help but feel that this sounds like an actual nightmare and I can't believe we live in a world like this where corporations can abuse this form of speech with their black holes of cash. What I'm not understanding is what benefit do you personally get out of making something so clearly dystopian in concept sound appealing or necessary? How can you not see that a policy such as this is only the first in a series of events that follows our government being controlled (at worst) or manipulated (at best) by corporations? This is godawful, and I can't fathom why you'd want to spread a message like this when it's clearly so toxic.
Conservative nonprofit wanted to spend money to air a film (without the money, they couldn't air the film, kinda like how if you don't have money to hire a lawyer, you don't have the lawyer), FEC said that is illegal, conservative nonprofit sued, conservative nonprofit won. Keep in mind that only a minority of expenditures are done by the Amazons and Walmarts of the world. You act like they are single-handedly spending billions on advertising, when they're not, lmao.
@@sjr042 it doesn't need to be that much to be damaging. I work in electrical utility and you don't even want to know the amount of irreversible damage that his been done to this world as a result of corporations paying people into power and repealing laws that would drop their profits (not ruin their business just make it harder for them to do things without consequences). You don't need billions you need hundreds of corporations giving hundreds of thousands and even some more. This was supposed to be a people's country where a person's ideas and agenda was valued not an entity who's agenda is hidden (don't have to disclose the funding until after the election) and who's money outweighs the speech of the people.
@@sjr042 there needs to be limits on it. Can you seriously not see the issue between millions of dollars of advertising by a corporation who's interest is making more money vs a person or group of peoples who's wallets are limited doing the same thing? One is not honest and the other is. Forcing corporations to acknowledge who and why they're doing it for is the correct step or you know we can stop treating money like speech.
@Cobalt_11 unless you're a communist, this is ridiculous. You think the gov should be able to limit what a corporation says, enter their business whenever they want, deny them trial by jury, or hold them in jail indefinitely without charges? This doesn't just apply to Amazon and Walmart, but to just about every business in the US. Once again, you don't lose your rights when you start a business.
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s not that their speech was restricted, it was limited. Buckley v Valeo established that spending money is an expression of free speech. Do you not think that it is an issue that those with more money have more speech, therefore making us less equal and more oligarchical?
She talks about people not understanding when she missed THE WHOLE POINT..
She is probably an anarchy capitalist/libertarian which means she is all for monarchy, plutocracy and/or crime syndicate rule
Corporations rule the US. I’m not convinced that this helped free speech for the people.
48k views. 74 thumbs up... Speaks for itself. If we lived in anything resembling a democracy their verdict would not stand.
Money does not equal speech. Or at least it should not.
Money does not equal counsel, either, but a ban on criminal defendants spending money to hire a lawyer would likewise violate the Sixth Amendment. Money is not guns, either, but a ban on spending money to buy guns violates the Second Amendment.
@sjr: So, are you actually trying to justify the idea that the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling on Citizens United was a good thing? For who‽ The _`elite`;_ a.k.a., the American oligarchy? Or are you merely just doing nothing more than trolling for your _`shits & giggles`?_
This video was brought to you by Nestle
I’ve yet to find anyone who is vocal about how “bad” this ruling is who actually knows the ruling and why it happened. It’s a testament to how ignorant and easily misled the general public is. And it’s all by design. It’s much easier to control people who don’t even understand what’s happening.
It's a horrible decision and I knew it was a horrible decision in highschool. This lady is totally misrepresenting the core problems the decision created.
Okay so mind enlightening us on why its a positive thing rather than simply attacking the non believers???
@@lotusgrl444because the gov doesn't get to decide who can speak and when on campaign issues.
Should Elon Musk not be allowed to talk politics a month before an election? He has outsized influence.
@@alansnyder9 the corporations he runs should not be allowed to donate millions of Dollars to influence an election as it is in their own interest as a corporation (who's only purpose by LAW is to maximize profits for shareholders) to do so. People loves should not be affected at ALL by an entity that is not a person. Simple as that.
@Cobalt_11 Elon Musk IS THE CORPORATION. Space X would be nothing without him. I'm not even talking about Twitter.
Would you be against Space X putting out an ad for a Green Party candidate that said "Vote for X candidate to save the planet"?
You assume that corporations want people elected so that they get more money. Maybe they want a candidate who aligns with their ideas. Like when Ben and Jerry's support Bernie Sanders. Is Bernie gonna give them some crazy ice cream kickback if he's elected?
They don't hate it they love it money is pouring in every negative comment they make brings them more money
one thing is to give a verbal opinon another is to but elected officials votes thereby greatly limiting democracy. Social media gives one a voice same as a corporate campaign. RIDICULOUS!
IDK how we dodge it. Any special interest that I liked lobby to the Congress and this rule would have screwed them because it was too poor. The only thing it sucks that a poor person with legitimate is not enough (perhaps never was) to get his policies pushed since a corporation, whose interest opposed the poor citizen, outspent that citizen through MSM and political ads.
here’s the TL:DR:
Citizens United made a movie that was politically charged, and released it before an election. Since this was against the law, the government sued them. Then Citizens United sued back because they believed law was unfair, and violated their constitutional rights.
Of course it was for Hillary Clinton's movie lmao so messed up
You're making this all seem hunky dory, no big deal, and it's only natural things ended up like this, but even with all that sugarcoating I couldn't help but feel that this sounds like an actual nightmare and I can't believe we live in a world like this where corporations can abuse this form of speech with their black holes of cash.
What I'm not understanding is what benefit do you personally get out of making something so clearly dystopian in concept sound appealing or necessary?
How can you not see that a policy such as this is only the first in a series of events that follows our government being controlled (at worst) or manipulated (at best) by corporations?
This is godawful, and I can't fathom why you'd want to spread a message like this when it's clearly so toxic.
Conservative nonprofit wanted to spend money to air a film (without the money, they couldn't air the film, kinda like how if you don't have money to hire a lawyer, you don't have the lawyer), FEC said that is illegal, conservative nonprofit sued, conservative nonprofit won. Keep in mind that only a minority of expenditures are done by the Amazons and Walmarts of the world. You act like they are single-handedly spending billions on advertising, when they're not, lmao.
@@sjr042 it doesn't need to be that much to be damaging. I work in electrical utility and you don't even want to know the amount of irreversible damage that his been done to this world as a result of corporations paying people into power and repealing laws that would drop their profits (not ruin their business just make it harder for them to do things without consequences). You don't need billions you need hundreds of corporations giving hundreds of thousands and even some more. This was supposed to be a people's country where a person's ideas and agenda was valued not an entity who's agenda is hidden (don't have to disclose the funding until after the election) and who's money outweighs the speech of the people.
@@Cobalt_11 advertising is not a crime.
@@sjr042 there needs to be limits on it. Can you seriously not see the issue between millions of dollars of advertising by a corporation who's interest is making more money vs a person or group of peoples who's wallets are limited doing the same thing? One is not honest and the other is. Forcing corporations to acknowledge who and why they're doing it for is the correct step or you know we can stop treating money like speech.
@@Cobalt_11 no there doesn't. There is no such thing as too much free speech. Advertising is not a crime.
Just follow the money, again. The supporters of CU are the GOP, corporations, billionaires and lobbyists.
Corporations shouldn't get to influence our politics. Period!
What a ridiculous take
So we should ban ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc?
Corporations aren't some special entity that the constitution doesn't apply to.
@@alansnyder9 they should be.
@Cobalt_11 unless you're a communist, this is ridiculous. You think the gov should be able to limit what a corporation says, enter their business whenever they want, deny them trial by jury, or hold them in jail indefinitely without charges? This doesn't just apply to Amazon and Walmart, but to just about every business in the US.
Once again, you don't lose your rights when you start a business.
Get real your FOS
About what?