User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: A few arguments against Citizens United.

  1. #1
    Points: 9,194, Level: 22
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 56
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    RadioGod's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    925
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,630
    Points
    9,194
    Level
    22
    Thanks Given
    1,020
    Thanked 915x in 631 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    A few arguments against Citizens United.

    Citizens United is just the latest in a long string of corporate-led nonsense. Corporations themselves were started as groups of investors that would group their investments together, with public money or public backing from municipalities, to build needed infrastructure. Our bridges and railroads built in the late 1800's are an example of that.
    These Corporations were allowed to charge tolls and fares to help recover their investments. Strangely, corporations were not needed for this, public bond measures were, and still are, the primary way for citizens to vote on whether they want to fund something from their own pockets. But the heads of early corporations, and board members, were powerful people of their day. They realized early on, the easiest way to make a ton of money, was to institute themselves as a 3rd party in these taxpayer funded infrastructure programs, then quickly become so important to the job market and economy that they were to big or vital to fail.

    As a business owner, a person is liable for any damages or illegal activity conducted by their business. A corporation has no such personal liabilities. A corporation is just a group of shareholders who own the business. The board and CEO really have no personal liability, except to the shareholders and government regulatory agencies. The corporate standard has always been that the decision makers must look to increasing the company's value for the shareholders. That means corporate leaders are in a never-ending quest to acquire or produce things as cheaply as possible, and sell them for as much as possible. Most of us would agree that principle makes good business sense.

    The problems arise when corporations get so large they basically have their specific market monopolized. This monopolization doesn't happen because the company produces superior goods or services. When companies get this big, it's because they have gone to war with their competitors and won.

    What do I mean by "war"? There are many moves in the monopolizing playbook. You buy out or threaten not to do business with small companies that provide materials or assistance to your rival companies, and finally, buy them out when their stock price hits rock-bottom. You engage in propaganda, spreading false or mostly false stories about your competitors. Or create a bad story that is true. Think rat skulls in cereal, syringes in soda, or roaches in foods here. You have friends and business partners buy up stock in your competition until cumulatively, you have a majority share. Then you can wreak havoc at board meetings and shareholder meetings. You can even decide to sell the company, you guessed it, to your own company.

    There are so many ways to wage this war, but only the most despicable and unscrupulous will win the day. And if a company's leaders don't do this, they are in violation of the shareholders trust, and they are fired and even fined by regulatory agencies. And the same goes with general business practices. If it is cheaper to pollute the environment and pay an occasional fine when caught, corporate leaders are actually obligated to do so.

    When it comes down to the inevitable crimes perpetrated in this corporate system, it is not at all similar to a regular business owned by 1 or a small group of people. No one person in a corporation is rarely ever held accountable for anything.

    For example, if I owned a mechanics shop, and I got caught paying someone to dump used oil into the city storm drains, I would be fined and sent to prison for a long, long time. But a large corporation can get caught paying folks to dump superfund-grade toxic substances by the billions of gallons, and no person is actually charged with a crime. It falls on the corporation as a whole in issuing responsibility, but hardly ever on those specific individuals who made the decisions personally. The corporation's army of lawyers and ex-employees in all the regulatory and oversight bodies make sure of that.

    Now, when it comes to Citizens United, these corporations successfully claimed that donating money to political campaigns is a form of free speech, and is protected under the first amendment. This argument does imply that a corporation, as an entity made up of citizens, should have the same first amendment rights as any individual citizen. Strangely, a lot of American corporations are ran by individuals who are NOT citizens of this country, and have never had a first amendment right to begin with. Then there are the multinational corporations, who have offices around the world, who, just because they have an office in the US, think that qualifies them to those same constitutional protections that all US citizens are supposed to have. If I were to suggest that an illegal alien had full constitutional rights as a citizen here, I would be laughed out of this forum. Even tar and feathered. But somehow the corporate version seems just fine with those same people.

    So Citizens United has nothing to do with an individual's campaign contributions as a form of free speech, but everything to do with large wealthy groups of political donors, similar to PAC's, and legitimizing their use of money towards political candidates friendly to their corporate causes. And also legalizing and expanding corruption of elected officials. It isn't called bribery anymore, it's lobbying. And instead of being treasonous, it's called being an American patriot who supports a free market economy.

    Citizens United wrongly takes the liberties retained by individual citizens of the US, and assigns those same rights to corporations, the same corporations who share none of our values and respect for other citizen's rights. In fact, those corporations, as laid out above, thrive and profit from doing things most of the citizens would consider irresponsible, reprehensible, and would be locked up for.

    I think the court reached too far on this decision. But I think it was predicated upon bad past decisions as well. I can see how the court has deemed that a corporation should be considered a "person" for the purposes of having a body to seek damages and legal recourses from. But I think this would have been more effectively done by just being able to personally sue the offenders making decisions for the corporation. No need to arbitrarily label corporations "persons" for that. Those decisions laid a terrible foundation for Citizens United to emerge, probably on purpose, as part of an ongoing process to replace the voices of the people with corporate one's. And they are still not done, guaranteed.
    Further, individual citizens who are shareholders, board members, or other leaders of these corporations, can all donate money out of their own pockets to the political picks of their own choosing, on their own time. They do not need, and it is ridiculously anti-constitutional, for their or any other corporation to speak on their behalf in the form of political donations or lobbying. The same could be said of PAC's, non-profit groups, labor unions, etc. Any one citizen who is a member of those groups can easily donate and contribute on their own.

    For those that would balk at my use of the term anti-constitutional, think about it. The constitution lays out civil liberties that cannot ever be violated for any citizen. Corporations are just groups of people, and those individual people were never meant to be afforded a second form of citizenship as a collective. Let me emphasize this, If an American citizen has rights, then has rights again through a corporation as an investor, is he twice the citizen as someone not invested? Nothing in the Constitution mentions different levels of citizenship. Under this court ruling, the corporations, by default, also have the other rights afforded to the people, like the right to bear arms and the right to assemble. Technically, they can all have their own standing armies, many of them foreign and mercenary in nature, right on our soil. Again, the same forum members that protest vehemently against unarmed caravans of migrants trying to "invade" our nation, would probably think nothing of some Saudi Government-owned corporation having not just the same constitutional rights as American citizens, but a fully armed foreign force in our country. The sense I get, is forum members would say if they could afford it, and it creates some jobs or helps our economy, we should allow it. I say it is utter nonsense, and it flies in the face of what the Constitution was for, preserving the rights of citizens, and collectively protecting the nation from foreign invaders.

    And lastly, and specifically, on freedom of speech in this country. Citizens United has made the actual individual citizens right to free speech secondary in nature to the corporation's. As individuals, we might be able to spare $10 or even $1,000 for a candidate who shares our values and sentiments. But corporations, and PAC's, non-profits, and labor unions, collectively spend several hundreds of billions on politics every year. Who's voice matters in the halls of congress and in the regulatory bodies of our government? Hint- it isn't the people's voices.

    If money is free speech, then those with the most money have the voices with the most authority and political persuasion. It turn over the reigns of our nation to those with the worst morality, the worst criminal and pathological elements of our society, and secures all of the resources and manpower of our nation of citizens, and directs it, laser-focused, towards complete and total domination of the world, and even beyond when that becomes feasible. That is the end-goal of any corporation, whether they know it or not, because in the corporate model, no amount is ever enough, and no power and influence is ever enough.

    For some interesting reading, check out the first corporation in America, not counting some earlier post-revolutionary banking groups. It looks like, from the beginning, the story starts off with some good old-fashioned corporate espionage. He stole plans for a power loom from an English business and other trade secrets from a Massachussetts company.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston...turing_Company

    Wiki on Corporations:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
    "A corporation is a company, a group of people or an organization authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law."

    6 Minute video for those with ADD:


    Longer video for the educated, or those that wish to be:
    I live with a profound happiness that can only be achieved by being hated by Mr.Veritis

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RadioGod For This Useful Post:

    Just AnotherPerson (12-30-2018),Orion Rules (12-30-2018)

  3. #2
    Points: 432,155, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307976
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,457
    Points
    432,155
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,991x in 55,613 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Those who oppose the citizens United decision have no problem with a labor union being treated as a person.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (12-31-2018),nathanbforrest45 (12-31-2018)

  5. #3
    Points: 9,194, Level: 22
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 56
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    RadioGod's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    925
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,630
    Points
    9,194
    Level
    22
    Thanks Given
    1,020
    Thanked 915x in 631 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    Those who oppose the citizens United decision have no problem with a labor union being treated as a person.
    A labor union should not be a person, either. I mentioned unions in the post. Neither a corporation or labor union needs personhood status to enable groups of people to come together to achieve some goal. Those people that make up the groups are all individual citizens, and that should be enough. I see no need for the extra forms of citizenship that are created under Citizens United.
    I live with a profound happiness that can only be achieved by being hated by Mr.Veritis

  6. #4

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1. I can come up with many arguments for and against Citizens United. However, I can come up with many similar arguments against upholding constitutional rights to certain individuals as well. The thing is: this constitution is a messy thing. Rights are rights. Citizens United is a no-brainer. We've discussed this. Change the constitution if you don't like it.

    2.
    Quote Originally Posted by RadioGod View Post
    Corporations themselves were started as groups of investors that would group their investments together, with public money or public backing from municipalities, to build needed infrastructure. Our bridges and railroads built in the late 1800's are an example of that. These Corporations were allowed to charge tolls and fares to help recover their investments. Strangely, corporations were not needed for this, public bond measures were, and still are, the primary way for citizens to vote on whether they want to fund something from their own pockets. But the heads of early corporations, and board members, were powerful people of their day. They realized early on, the easiest way to make a ton of money, was to institute themselves as a 3rd party in these taxpayer funded infrastructure programs, then quickly become so important to the job market and economy that they were to big or vital to fail.
    No. The progenitors of the modern corporation were the chartered companies, such as the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Hudson's Bay Company, which were created to lead the colonial trading ventures of European nations in the 17th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

    3.
    Quote Originally Posted by RadioGod View Post
    As a business owner, a person is liable for any damages or illegal activity conducted by their business. A corporation has no such personal liabilities. A corporation is just a group of shareholders who own the business. The board and CEO really have no personal liability, except to the shareholders and government regulatory agencies


    No. Business owners and actors are always personally liable for their individual conduct. You cannot hide behind a corporate status for your own misconduct.

    4.
    Quote Originally Posted by RadioGod View Post
    The corporate standard has always been that the decision makers must look to increasing the company's value for the shareholders. That means corporate leaders are in a never-ending quest to acquire or produce things as cheaply as possible, and sell them for as much as possible. Most of us would agree that principle makes good business sense.


    Corporations legally exist for the sole purpose of making money for the shareholders.

    5.
    Quote Originally Posted by RadioGod View Post
    The problems arise when corporations get so large they basically have their specific market monopolized. This monopolization doesn't happen because the company produces superior goods or services. When companies get this big, it's because they have gone to war with their competitors and won.
    We have laws against monopolies. Let's enforce the law. The monopolizing playbook discussion is fantasy land stuff. There are laws against this.

    6.
    Quote Originally Posted by RadioGod View Post
    Citizens United wrongly takes the liberties retained by individual citizens of the US, and assigns those same rights to corporations, the same corporations who share none of our values and respect for other citizen's rights. In fact, those corporations, as laid out above, thrive and profit from doing things most of the citizens would consider irresponsible, reprehensible, and would be locked up for.
    Stop it. I carefully and logically explained to you and provided legal citations to you that it was the correct legal decision in your last anti-CU thread. Nothing has changed. We get it -- you don't like it. CU was the proper decision. Change the Constitution if you don't like it.

    As an aside, Happy New Year, RadioGod!!



    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (12-31-2018),Chris (12-31-2018),MisterVeritis (12-31-2018),pragmatic (12-31-2018)

  8. #5
    Points: 84,798, Level: 70
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Just AnotherPerson's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    27586
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    11,128
    Points
    84,798
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    14,094
    Thanked 9,555x in 5,668 Posts
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Stop it. I carefully and logically explained to you and provided legal citations to you that it was the correct legal decision in your last anti-CU thread. Nothing has changed. We get it -- you don't like it. CU was the proper decision. Change the Constitution if you don't like it.

    As an aside, Happy New Year, RadioGod!!
    Ok looks like Radio's thread struck a nerve too, are you a professional mod? What is up with this? Can you not reply without trying to talk in such a rude manner?

    Is Radio not allowed to post a thread about a subject you don't agree with?

    Who the hell do you work for?
    We are all brothers and sisters in humanity. We are all made from the same dust of stars. We cannot be separated because all life is interconnected.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Just AnotherPerson For This Useful Post:

    RadioGod (12-31-2018)

  10. #6
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]

    Ok looks like Radio's thread struck a nerve too, are you a professional mod? What is up with this? Can you not reply without trying to talk in such a rude manner?

    Is Radio not allowed to post a thread about a subject you don't agree with?

    Who the hell do you work for?
    @DGUtley has presented a well-thought out rebuttal to Radio's OP. Have you no argument to counter his points?
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (12-31-2018)

  12. #7
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The OP is a long argument that says corporations forced themselves on us. It fails to address how corporations got this power. It ignores the legal history that created corporations, established their personhood, and forms the precedence for Citizens United.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (12-31-2018)

  14. #8
    Points: 34,558, Level: 45
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 892
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassYour first Group25000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Admiral Ackbar's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    5002
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    6,897
    Points
    34,558
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    4,270
    Thanked 4,992x in 3,109 Posts
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]

    Ok looks like Radio's thread struck a nerve too, are you a professional mod? What is up with this? Can you not reply without trying to talk in such a rude manner?

    Is Radio not allowed to post a thread about a subject you don't agree with?

    Who the hell do you work for?

    Professional Mod? They are all highly trained and professional. You have no idea the training, the continuing education courses and seminars that these Mods go to. It is an amazing amount of work....

    NACMOD ( National Association of Certified Mods) is on these guys to uphold standards.

    Modsquad.jpg

    All in the above photo are Certified Mods

    BTW I am certain DGutley works for #2


    Last edited by Admiral Ackbar; 12-31-2018 at 10:30 AM.
    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"----Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Admiral Ackbar For This Useful Post:

    nathanbforrest45 (12-31-2018),pragmatic (12-31-2018)

  16. #9
    Points: 79,997, Level: 68
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 53
    Overall activity: 0.3%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nathanbforrest45's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    77960
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    In a house on a hill
    Posts
    28,260
    Points
    79,997
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    7,102
    Thanked 16,261x in 10,568 Posts
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rude? Does rude mean not accepting what someone has written? Rude must be the new insult of the day from the left.

    Men are men and women are women

    Oh, you are so rude to say that.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to nathanbforrest45 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (12-31-2018)

  18. #10
    Points: 79,997, Level: 68
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 53
    Overall activity: 0.3%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nathanbforrest45's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    77960
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    In a house on a hill
    Posts
    28,260
    Points
    79,997
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    7,102
    Thanked 16,261x in 10,568 Posts
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What monopolies have corporations created for themselves? I can't think of a single industry that one company holds a monopoly. UPS comes close but that is because they are quite good at what they do. Monopolies cannot exist without government support so if you want to get rid of a monopoly get the government out of supporting businesses.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to nathanbforrest45 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (12-31-2018)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts