Citizens United
 

This is more relevant than Benghazi.
This is the most important freedom of speech issue in our lifetimes.
This is why third party candidates do not exist nor cannot.
This is money in politics at it's lowest.
This is where Karl Rove thought he would be King.
This is why no sane candidate can talk about issues.
This is where spin comes from and where it returns.
This is why fact checkers exist.
This perpetuates gridlock and destroys real ideas.

If you really hate the direction this country is going this is where the fight is. The fact it "did not work" is irrelevant to they will try again until they get it right. Disregarding a bad solution will not unmask it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission
http://www.citizensunited.org/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2129153.html

"I think super PACs as such are in fact very dangerous in the long run," Gingrich told Colbert. "There's something fundamentally, profoundly wrong about what's happening. And it's happening in both parties, and in the long run it's going to be very negative and very destructive of our system."

Gingrich hasn't always felt this way. At the time of the court's decision in early 2010, he argued that it had granted “the right of every citizen, whether you agree or disagree, to get up and be heard, to speak, to have space in politics.” And the former speaker himself was a heavy beneficiary of super PAC spending during his failed campaign for president earlier this year. Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting his candidacy, received at least $15 million in donations from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson alone.

But after serving as a punching bag for a super PAC supporting eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney ahead of the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich appeared less pleased with Citizens United's impact on elections. Despite his unhappiness with being the primary target of the super PAC's attacks, Gingrich refused to take the opportunity to oppose Citizens United more broadly.

”I’m the victim of one personal person, Mitt Romney, whose staff decided to run a deliberately negative and dishonest campaign,” Gingrich said in January. "This particular approach, I think, has nothing to do with the Citizens United case, it has to do with a bunch of millionaires getting together to run a negative campaign, and Governor Romney refusing to call them off.”

Citizen's United pretty much means no third party candidate will ever be elected.

I can't believe a modern SCOTUS believes that money equals free speech, or that corporations are people. It flies in the face of every value this republic was founded on. I mean, you couldn't find many people as anti-aristocratic, or anti-corporate, as the founders.

But Jefferson did not stop there.

He was, as well, a relentless critic of the monopolizing of economic power by banks, corporations and those who put their faith in what the third president referred to as "the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.

Jefferson might not have wanted a lot of government, but he wanted enough government to assert the sovereignty of citizens over corporations. To his view, nothing was more important to the health of the republic.

In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations began to flex their political muscles, he announced that: “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

There are those who would have us believe that the founders intended for corporations to control our elections – and, tragically, five of these Tories sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, where they recently ruled that the nation’s biggest businesses may spend whatever they like to buy the results that best serve their bottom lines.

The better angels among the founders would be aghast.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/37038/...-corporations#

This is a must read. Corporations have taken several steps to become as powerful as they are today. They used to be chartered by special legislature to serve specific public needs. Now they have no obligations to serve the public, and they are the most powerful "people." This kind of "person" is exempt from individual responsibility. They gained more privileges from the government over time, and they destroyed the real free market in America.

Corporations and the Public Interest
A look at how the originally purpose behind corporate charters has been lost

Good article. Thanks. I especially liked this line:

The corporation is the institutionalized form of this shirking of responsibility. The primary purpose of the corporate form is to insulate a certain class of people from responsibility for actions taken on their behalf.

New bumper sticker: Save America! Kill the corporations! ;D

The problem remain nobody reads, thinks, or comprehends. What you offered was a very important read and people will chose to read it if they like you or choose not to read it if they do not. They will say you should have done this or that in order to justify their inability click their mouse. The tragedy is the very people who should read this will not and will remain as fools.

Obama will never get anything passed regarding education no matter what he suggests. Conservatives like people to remain foolish. I created a 25 page financial breakdown of a stock I was investing in just for giggles. I do not say that to impress anyone but what I uncovered multiple layers of bad, missing, poorly crafted, or incorrect information reported in even our financial news sources. How is it my simple mind can uncover this public betrayal so easily? Why isn't think broad based fraud not known?

My point is this. Unless you do the hard work, due diligence, and take responsibility for what you know and become a citizen of worth you will never uncover the truth.

A simple rule of thumb. Reading the same sources, articles, and writers will eventually fail you. Sooner or later you will have to think for yourself. Most Americans have put their own brains on ignore and refuse to listen to that small voice that tells them the truth.

My favorite...

If that’s true, it means the largest and most powerful "persons" in America are exempt from any standards of individual responsibility and from any obligation to help solve problems in voluntary and nongovernmental ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EQwrB1vu74c

This guy...bought and paid for....it will happen again.

I wonder how www.isidewith.com chose the political views to use for Mitt? I thought they ranked him too high for me. It's easy to see how he can be a 100% match for everybody after watching that video. LOL

I don't think anybody who voted for Mitt voted FOR Mitt.

If anyone on this board flip flopped that much it would not be politely called flip flopping.

I think it's amazing that politics season came and went but there zero talk about election reform. It is like we learned nothing from this last nightmare election.

Zero attention span. I was surprised about how little impact this decision did have on this election cycle. But it does take time for the "players" to figure out how to exploit the ****ed up opportunities.

The ship has sailed. Say bye, bye to America. :wave:

Once they figure out all the kinks nobody will remember how it started.

I know and it will suck.

The biggest problem is how do you wake up and entire society to something that really is critical to the whole process of keeping democracy.

If you are dedicated enough and willing to sacrifice you follow the pattern established by Mother Against Drunk Driving (MADD). You start a grassroot movement and mobilized folks.

You are correct MADD changed the entire culture of alcoholism as being "fun" and sobered up quite a few people to the real risks.

The problem is you need a tragedy to motivate people. Common sense is not common.

Not to mention I don't think there was a single person (Republican or Democrat) who wasn't sick of having to listen to Thomas McMurphey for 30 seconds before every damn youtube video they watched. Hey Thomas, why don't you move back to where you came from if you don't like where we are headed. And **** youtube for making us watch that **** every single ****ing time we wanted to watch a video. ****in A holes.

You need an outrage, and one that emotionally and psychologically connects with people.

This is how corruption seeps in to even our most cherished institutions. What is outrageous is how many things we are being conned out of and duped out of without so much as a mumbling word from the "liberal" media.

Agreed - it's almost as if it would be better to have a corrupt Republican than a corrupt Democrat in office. If McCain or Romney were elected and did the same things as Obama (protecting big banks, big health insurance companies, continuing privacy intrusions, Bush-era torture, etc.) the outrage from the "liberals" and "progressives" would be deafening, for good reason - and maybe would galvanize the populace to stand against these things and prevent their occurence in the future.

Instead, if a Democrat like Obama is in office, too many on the left are blind to his actions and give it a pass.

The CU ruling is not surprising, seeing as Antonin Scalia literally hates free speech: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...eech-decision/

In honor or Romnesia
 

It's a shell game. Once whoever is elected they start the game all over again and nobody pays attention that, ultimately, they were conned.

We need a system that eliminates clowns instead of perpetuating.

I wish that free speech were encouraged but also it would be nice if people had manners.