Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Overturn Citizens United & End Corporate Personhood

Posted 2 years ago on June 18, 2012, 6:43 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Wisconsin’s Alien Seed - By Jim Hightower

"Scott Walker Wins Wisconsin," screamed headlines across the country after the labor-bashing incumbent governor hung onto his job in the June 5 recall election.
Well, yes...but no. Walker will get to stay in office for the rest of his term, but he didn't win the election — money did. This was a victory for the Citizens United edict issued two years ago by the Supreme Court's five-man corporatist majority. This anti-democratic ruling opened the door for unlimited sums of corporate cash to barge into our national, state, and local elections and take charge. Walker is the first ugly sprouting of that alien seed.
He sacked up some $30 million from corporate interests — nearly eight times the money that his Democratic opponent had to spend. Two-thirds of Walker's stockpile came from out of state. Bob Perry, an anti-labor, anti-government Texas tycoon, sank more than half-a-million bucks into his Wisconsin soul mate's campaign. Likewise, the far-right DeVos family pitched in with a quarter-million dollars from its Amway fortune. So did Las Vegas casino baron Sheldon Adelson, the guy who bankrolled Newt Gingrich's failed presidential bid.
Then came the insidious, secretive, "outside" campaigns that the Supremes green-lighted. Citizens United allowed corporations to dump mountains of their cash into elections. The multibillionaire, laissez-fairyland Koch brothers, for example, shoved at least $3 million behind Walker — practically all of which went to negative attacks against his opponent.
Some "victory." Honest conservatives might take cheer that Walker still clings to the governor's chair, but there can be no joy in the fact that money rules. That's the lesson of this election.

Join your OWS brothers & sisters to overturn Citizens United


Virtually everything we want hinges on disarming our opponent –
………………………………………………………….………………...GREED
by stopping the flood of bribes into our government.


This is the first REAL step to REAL change .


JOIN US >
Join the NYC OWS…………….. (even if you are not near NYC )
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group

nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
bit.ly/vK2pGI
regular meetings Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium


OUR NO PASSWORD OR SIGNUP WEB SITE http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com/


check out our comprehensive analysis of
the 17 existing proposed amendments
and our detailed historical timeline of corporate personhood


Are you ready
......................TO JOIN 80% OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ?


We must not
……DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must
……DEMAND GOALS THAT WE WILL ACHIEVE FOR OURSELVES


Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -

Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!


80% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll

.........................................
In the the PFAW Poll -
85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today.
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount corporations can spend on elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.


Our primary goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve – by disarming our greatest enemy –
…………………………………………………………GREED.


This article was published at NationofChange at:

92 Comments

92 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by myows (133) 2 years ago

Regardless of political ideology people need to be aware that it's a real BAD idea for any one individual to be allowed to donate an infinite amount of money to get their boy elected. This time the billionaire may be on your side of the issue but next time he may not be. Walker got more money from 3 individual donors than Barrett got in total! What does he owe these people now?

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

What is required of you when you buy something? Speech or Money.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

to quietly step down come the end of his term

[+] -4 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

Unions should stop CONFISCATING dues from members and throwing them towards political candidates which members don't necessarily agree with. At least have an opt-out for members if the MUST belong to a union.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Totally off topic. Nice job hijacking a thread.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

unions are pretty rare

I've been in none my entire working life

I heard union political contributions are 1/5 that of corporate contributions

[-] -2 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

Who cares?

The idea of confiscating worker's earnings against their will and throwing it towards candidates they don't agree with is BS.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the corps that employ them do just that

[-] -2 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

No they don't. Unless it's on behalf of the gubment thru payroll taxes.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

corp often invest in candidate funding

I've heard 15:1 compared to unions

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You heard RIGHT !!!

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

counted 16 unions in 140 top contributors

off the envelope that's 1:9

[-] -1 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

And they're right at the top with the most donations, you idiot. It's ordered by size of political contribution.

How the hell do you hold down a job? Oh wait, I forgot! YOU DON'T.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Shareholders of corp 1% criminals should have a say on whether they want corp money to go to politicians. When that is done I might consider your anti worker nonsense.

[-] -2 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

Shareholders do. They invest in the stocks of companies they agree with. They have the power of the purse.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

When decisions come up as to where political contributions are gonna go the shareholders and the employees should have a vote. Maybe then I would entertain your attack on union political activity..

[+] -4 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

Fuc|< unions in the assssssssssss. Political contributions are decided by thugs like Jimmy Hoffa Jr., DICK Trumka and Kompany.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/05/happy-labor-day-top-10-union-thug-moments-of-the-year/

[-] 5 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I rather have those thugs deciding POLICY, then having Sheldon Adelson and jamie dimon deciding our futures.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You two are arguing the same thing, just different sides of the isle....this is like groundhogs day

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

So have you found a third party that you are voting for this year? Here in Arizona I get to choose between twitly dee and twitly dumb. sadly, twittly dumb seems to win more times than naught.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The Green Party

[-] 0 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

Nope. A worker shouldn't be forced to donate part of his paycheck towards politicians he or she doesn't agree with like unions impose on their workers. I can choose not to invest in a company or buy their product.

That's the difference.

[-] -1 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

I'd rather not have either.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

See, you think you are clever with your response, but the truth is that you show just how impractical you are. To put it another way, what you propose, well, that is just wishful thinking.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

and the corps

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

This is my litmus test for candidates.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22354) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

How The Hell Did Wall Street Get An Extra $16 Trillion? Bernie Sanders Explains.

I love it.

This video is popping up all over the place.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Bernie for President!

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (22354) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Woo-Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just would really need to get him some good support.

Move to amend is picking-up steam.

That would be a start.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Good post.

[-] 1 points by GregOrr (113) 2 years ago

I created a website to organize and vote on public policy proposals - http://the99vote.com

Overturn Citizens United by Statute - http://the99vote.com/idea/US18 Overturn by Constitutional Amendment - http://the99vote.com/idea/USTX1 End Corporate Personhood by Constitutional Amendment - http://the99vote.com/idea/US82

You can vote on these ideas, argue/discuss, and propose other ideas. I hope you'll use the site.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

We had some very smart people try to answer the questions of why we occupy, what we want and how to get there.

We arrived at the same conclusion. Comforting.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You will never get Citizens United reversed. BOTH parties benefit from selling their souls and enjoy the huge sums of $'s, flowing into their campaigns. IMO, the only remedy is to change the system.

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"reverse" implies SCOTUS action.
The 4 left/lib/dems on the court voted against CU
TWICE
if there is a dem president in the whitehouse when
one of the 5 stoges leaves - we've got it !


however 80% of Americans want it overturned via an amendment
that is something you can fight for


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

It's not uncommon for a justice to 'lean' opposite from ideology of the pres that nominated them. There's no guarantees and it is a possibility.

[-] 1 points by vegasirius (10) from Sacramento, CA 2 years ago

The only scientifically evidencibly demonstrable phenomena utterly responsible for all our socio-economic physical problems are the inanimate abstract legal contrivance socio-economic ploy the Limited Liabilty Company or called corporations. All empirical Evidencable data shows us this. It's near scientific principle because the design is destructive in every special case we see. Corporations doing the wrong thing or the right thing for the wrong reasons holds true in every case of action taken by a corporation

[-] 1 points by vegasirius (10) from Sacramento, CA 2 years ago

Yes, even my ultra 'conservative' grandfather understands the corrupting power of money on all branches of government. I say it's as simple as if we can see that in our system the more money someone spend the more say they have on policy. In a society with wealthy people as 1% of populous it's obvious to see that the more money you have the more votes 1 person can vote. It ought to be 1 person 1 vote rather than 1$ = 1 vote - voting with money isn't democracy remotely. Nor is money a person, nor are inanamate legal contrivances like corporations people. Only people are people. Children understand this because it's very very simple

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago
[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Bring your act to AZ, we got a state constitution that says "thou shall not screw with our propositions".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Is there any polling on how people feel about the Robert's Court?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

80% Disagreed with CU
don't know about bush v Gore poll


I'm surprised it is so high
Approval Rating for Justices Hits Low at Just 44% in New Poll
By ADAM LIPTAK and ALLISON KOPICKI Published: June 7, 2012

WASHINGTON — Just 44 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing and three-quarters say the justices’ decisions are sometimes influenced by their personal or political views, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News. Those findings are a fresh indication that the court’s standing with the public has slipped significantly in the past quarter-century, according to surveys conducted by several polling organizations. Approval was as high as 66 percent in the late 1980s, and by 2000 approached 50 percent.


[but a number of justices have incomes that have done the opposite of "slip"] -- just ask david & charles


The decline in the court’s standing may stem in part from Americans’ growing distrust in recent years of major institutions in general and the government in particular. But it also could reflect a sense that the court is more political, after the ideologically divided 5-to-4 decisions in Bush v. Gore, which determined the 2000 presidential election, and Citizens United, the 2010 decision allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions.

“The results of this and other recent polls call into question two pieces of conventional wisdom,” said Lee Epstein, who teaches law and political science at the University of Southern California. One is that the court’s approval rating has been stable over the years, the other is that it has been consistently higher than that of the other branches of government, Professor Epstein said.

On the highest-profile issue now facing the court, the poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans hope that the court overturns some or all of the 2010 health care law when it rules, probably this month. There was scant difference in the court’s approval rating between supporters and opponents of the law.

Either way, though, many Americans do not seem to expect the court to decide the case solely along constitutional lines. Just one in eight Americans said the justices decided cases based only on legal analysis.

“As far as the Supreme Court goes, judgments can’t be impersonal,” Vicki Bartlett, 57, an independent in Bremerton, Wash., said in a follow-up interview. “When you make judgments, it’s always personal. But the best hope is that they will do their job within the legal parameters.”

The public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that “appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power.” One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.”

Thirty-six percent of Americans said they disapproved of how the Supreme Court was handling its job, while 20 percent expressed no opinion. Though the court’s approval rating has always been above that of Congress — which is at 15 percent in the latest poll — it has occasionally dipped below that of the president.

A Gallup tracking poll conducted at the same time as the new survey by The Times and CBS News had President Obama’s approval rating at 47 percent, but about as many respondents disapproved of his performance.

The court’s tepid approval ratings crossed ideological lines and policy agendas. Liberals and conservatives both registered about 40 percent approval rates. Forty-three percent of people who hoped the court would strike down the health care law approved of its work, but so did 41 percent of those who favored keeping the law.

The court was also expected to decide this month whether a tough Arizona immigration law conflicts with federal immigration laws and policies. Perhaps the most contested part of the state law is one that often requires the police there to check the immigration status of people they stop or arrest.

As a general matter, more than 6 in 10 Americans said both the federal and state governments should play a role in addressing illegal immigration. A quarter said the federal government should have sole responsibility, and 11 percent said only state governments should address the matter.

One-third of Americans said the part of the Arizona law allowing the police to question people about their immigration status “goes too far,” and half said it was “about right.” Coverage of Supreme Court arguments in the case in April did not seem to affect public attitudes on the question, which have not changed since 2010.

The responses on immigration split along partisan and racial lines. About half of Democrats but only one in seven Republicans said the law went too far. The recent survey did not have enough black and Hispanic respondents to make fine distinctions among racial and ethnic groups, but 46 percent of those who identified themselves as nonwhite said the provision went too far, compared with 28 percent of non-Hispanic whites.

Asked about the health care case, 41 percent of those surveyed said the court should strike down the entire law, and another 27 percent said the justices should overturn only the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

Only 24 percent said they hoped the court “would keep the entire health care law in place.”

These numbers have not changed much in recent months and appeared to be largely unaffected by the more than six hours of arguments in the Supreme Court in March.

Nearly a third of respondents with a college degree said they would like to see the law upheld, compared with about 20 percent of those without a college diploma.

Dr. Gerald Schall, 68, a San Francisco independent, said that he approved of most of the law, but not the mandate, and hoped that the court would follow suit. “If they overturn the whole thing,” he said, “it’ll be like seeing your mother-in-law go over a cliff in your new Lexus.”

The nationwide poll is based on telephone interviews with 976 adults conducted May 31 through June 3 on landlines and cellphones and has a margin-of-sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

thank you, I feel the trust people have in the Court determines stability to a large degree, I believe the Robert's Court has weaken that stability. It would be great for the President to get far enough ahead to add a few justices, but that won't happen. Still I do think they think about how their time will be recorded and taught in time, maybe pressure can be brought to bear.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The Supreme Court's approval rating has experienced a dramatic rise in negative opinion following the high court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, according to a new Rasmussen poll released Sunday.

The polling agency found that 28 percent of people surveyed now think the Supreme Court is doing a bad job — an 11-point increase from a week ago.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-approval-obamacare-decision-ruling-health-care-2012-7#ixzz1zThYyALW

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

understandable, I know it didn't flip me over to actually liking it, so those who didn't like CU like me still don't like this court and now some more people don't too

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Nor I, but I DID expect them to uphold the ACA. Too much profit for corporations to knock it down. Now they have us by the short hairs, whatever price HC climbs to. We are now captive consumers.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I do believe Roberts ruled to save the insurance companies, single payer could lift this yoke of the mandate, I think it will come back when WalMart has to start paying for real health insurance in 2014.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

It's a done deal. They're not backing up now, when they got us where they want us. The ACA is so long and complicated, that I wouldn't be surprised if WalMart doesn't already have a loophole.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Like I always say you do good research, they do till 2014, they threatened to drop everybody if they had to sooner like other lower Royals, then the cartels, err I mean “exchanges” will be there to fleece, err I mean serve those that get dropped.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I'm still trying to determine what impact the part of ACA that got overturned by the SC ( medicaid & states ) will have on the poor.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

GOP will be able to take stand against "Obamacare" without losing money by punishing their poor people. It will be interesting how many regular folks in red states will be willing to deign people coverage that costs them nothing just to hate Obama.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

That's why ACA is too willy-nilly. Some people get it ....... some don't. Some states get more ....... some get less. They've made it too complicated. Medicare for all paid for through taxes and it's done. Then the mandate works too.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22354) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Strive for even equal coverage. Everyone pays in - everyone gets the same coverage.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

We are the only major country that doesn't have it.

We are #1 in cost - # 37 in care

We should be so proud ;(

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22354) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

There is so much to set aright.

We should not get bored for awhile looking for something to do I should think.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

LOL

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22354) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah - GOOD - find the humor - we will need it to get through this.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Single payer, which is "Medicare for all" of sorts I think, would be the best most efficient system from what we see around the world.

I would of been ok with at least having a public option so I would not be forced to pay the ridiculous costs of private management.

As you and I know the private sector costs about ten times as much to oversee payments as Medicare. We must keep pushing for at least a public option.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

But lets face it, in a poll of the employers of the fabulous five,
they get a nearly 100% approval rating

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I fear no matter the rule changes we might win, if we don't disassemble certain thoughts about money, its' power will return.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I seriously believe that a strong constitutional amendment -
completely severing corporate money and power from our government
will return the
power to the people


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It would be the surest way, if it can be done, with the ruling about Montana and CU today, maybe the states will rise up and pass one.

[-] 0 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Also end the Israeli lobby where they twist arms, intimidate and label anti Semetic if there's any criticism of Israel and its illegal settlements that even the Israeli Supreme Court declared illegal.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Be very careful what you ask for, CU also frees the unions to pour their millions into elections. Wisconsin would have been a rout without the 21 million the unions spent on Barrett!

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

NO organization -
corp or union or non-profit should be able to buy our government.
If a corp thinks its business has been helped by senator X, they can write that fact to the share holders and ask them to donate up to the maximum limit

ditto unions
ditto non-profits

We have to stop auctions and bring back elections

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

WRONG.

CU struck down a FEDERAL ban.

It doesn't get any more basic than that, and yet this entire whining bullshit post gets it wrong.

Labor could have raised money the exact same way Walker did, but failed to because their ideas lost in the court of public opinion before losing handily at the polls.

Try another excuse. I suppose anything is better than facing reality.

One more time: CITIZENS UNITED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WISCONSIN.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

the Koch bros alone have over 40 billion, things are getting real, and just saying "you lose" is bullshit, we wil redefine money then you're fucked

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Yes, of course, the puppy-gobbling, baby-beating, antichrist Koch bros. What else should I have expected from the left wing peanut gallery other than a diversion from the point:

CU had NOTHING to do with WI.

ZERO.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

25 to 1 money had a TON to do with it, kick the money out, and make them pay their debt!

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

CU had nothing to do with WI.

you can avoid admitting that and swerve to other things all you like, doesn't make it go away.

see, here it is again: CU had nothing to do with WI.

enjoy.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So in your tiny world CU is all that matters?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

we need to flip CU upside down and forbid any private money in campaigns, state or federal,

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

see, we can agree on something. believe it or not, I'd prefer term limits and publicly funded campaigns. given how despicable elected officials have proven to be, I make an extreme exception in my regular way of thinking because I see no other alternative than making politicians less valuable to buy (term limits) and limit the amount they can spend to get the office in the first place (public funding). I think this would have immediate and profound positive effects on the types of people who run and how honest their campaigns are. I would also add that the candidate cannot mention the opponent at all. breaking that rule would lead to immediate death penalty by armed Dept of Election commandos.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

term limits just gives them an excuss to start getting paid off by the 1% when they leave office, much more concerned about the revolving door than term limits, I think it's hard to find somebody that's good, but public funding and no revoling door, decide up front I'm working to get rich or working for the people but you can't do both.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

why are left-wingers so robotically opposed to term limits? I just don't get it.

"term limits just gives them an excuss to start getting paid off by the 1% when they leave office"

what does that even mean? and why would they get paid off after they've left office after only 2 or 4 years in office? that is not enough time to build a little moneysucking bullshit racket that the lifers all have.

what is the downside to term limits? is it that it's hard to find good people? WHAT good people? are even 5% of current elected officials anywhere not dishonest scumbags? especially the house and senate. declaring a candidacy is like announcing to the world that you are a malignant narcissist who wants a turn at the trough.

I think making it clear up front that this is not a career, but a citizen legislature that you serve in for 2 or 4 years and then go back home and live under the laws you worked on. watch how many stupid things get repealed with term limits, too.

I feel sorry to the baby, but the bathwater is contaminated. down the drain with all of it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

it only take one vote to earn a lifetime of easy money, the revoling door is the bigger issues if we had both fine

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

if you missed that this story is trying to link CU to WI, you are even dumber than a bag of shit, you are dumber than a bag of shit on fire that you lit and are stomping on to put the fire out.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You don't really keep up on things that much do you? Look I'll make it easy here's a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/supreme-courts-montana-decision-strengthens-citizens-united/2012/06/25/gJQA8Vln1V_blog.html

CU is EVERYWHERE

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

and that article has what to do with the fact that CU had ZERO to do with WI?

I'll make it easy: nothing

keep clinging, everso bitterly, to your own special version of reality. it makes those of us in the reality-based community feel better when we point and laugh at how silly you are, chasing phantoms and waiting for the sky to fall on you (and ONLY you, because you're so special!)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The opinion states clearly that CU applies that was the basis for the ruling.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

again, what does that have to do with CU having no effect on WI?

maybe you're trying to make a different point? if so, let me in on it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

In the Montana ruling the Robert's Court said that CU does aply in WI as well as MT elections.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

CU did not apply in WI.

Accept this fact and move on.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6005) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago
[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

montana came AFTER the WI recall.

tyme masheens do not exist.

therefore, CU had no effect on the WI recall.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Tell Dickens that the starving masses of London should have raised money too CU allowed superpacs and huge secret contributions Walker go 7 times as much money from groups OUTSIDE of WI Is that a good thiong?

[+] -4 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

The unions and/or their allies could have formed a super pac. Why didn't they?

The money spent in WI does not include the 1000s of manhours of on the clock union workers canvassing neighborhoods and working the phone banks. That's has a huge $ value, but isn't included.

Regardless, CU had ZERO to do with WI. Nothing. The opposition could have done what Walker's supporters did. But those on the losing side just don't want to face reality, so CU is an easy scapegoat.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

there are no unions with $25,000,000,000 bank accounts
perhaps you did not know that
I don't know if you are ignorant or stuipd or trolling
which is it?

[+] -4 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

absurd logic. in your pointy head, it's now what is spent, but how much is available to spend by the top donor on each side?

So ridiculous. Accept reality: unions lost because not enough people who cared enough to vote agreed with what they wanted to do. All else is lame excuses to shield an uncomfortable truth from reality.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . troll . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . ha BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha TROLL BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha… ..TR0LL HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . TROLL bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . TROLL. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .troll

[+] -4 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Poor Ben. Another innocent kid sentenced to at least one imbecile parent.