(02-18-2020 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote: (02-18-2020 11:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: (02-18-2020 11:41 AM)WKUYG Wrote: (02-18-2020 09:38 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: (02-18-2020 09:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote: I concur...
#henceDJT
I'm not asking this in any way to be a jackarss, because I very well could be missing this. What is DJT pushing for that is attacking the elite ruling class? The individual billionaires and corporate interests that have bought and sold politicians of both parties to ensure their interests come before the interests of the average american?
You dont seem to understand there always has been and always will be elite ruling class. But if it ever becomes a time when that's not the case...America is screwed. Free stuff is not the answer. Nothing is free and there's a limit on how much money you can take from others. Till they find a way to hide it, or run out of it. Then what? Well then you must look at those that are below them and tax the **** out of middle america. Then at some point that wont be enough so your government that wanted to give free handouts will soon be taxing those people also. By the time it gets to the middle class what you got free to begin with is about half of what you started with. The more people you start taxing to pay for it...
the less the free stuff is actually free. But of course it never was free and those at the bottom are still there. The difference they are now closer to the middle and top. Not because the bottom rose up but the others came down.
FREE STUFF
If a person wants to make money in this country, they can. The problem is most people dont have the drive and willing to sacrifice at the beginning to do so.
So is all of this to say you support our corporate overlords? You think the Citizens United ruling is a good thing? That there should be no limit at all on what any individuals or corporations can give to campaigns/parties? Hey that's fine just want to be clear that's what you are saying since you went on about FREE STUFF when that's not the topic of conversation.
The Democrats opposition to Citizens United is because they want to control all the big money coming into campaigns. When will they start talking about limiting labor union money?
The reality is that controlling the dark money means whoever controls the media controls the narrative. Democrats want to silence dissenting voices.
So dark money and citizens united give big money an outsized influence, but they also give us alternate viewpoints.
I must be missing something.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations,
labor unions, and other associations.
The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. This would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or
labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. The ruling effectively freed
labor unions and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government."
The decision remains highly controversial, generating much public discussion and receiving strong support and opposition from various groups. Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights". By contrast, President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington". The ruling had a major impact on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and
labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. Later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), would strike down other campaign finance restrictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Pretty sure Citizens United lumps labor unions right in with corporations in the ruling. Pretty certain overturning it would then limit labor union money coming in.
/
Dems try to shut down investigation into corruption
