Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Strategy Session: Corporations Aren't People and Money Isn't Speech

Posted 2 years ago on May 18, 2012, 5:54 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You are invited to attend a teach-in on

"Why a Constitutional Amendment
to End Corporate Personhood
and Declare that Money Is Not Speech Is
the Best First Step to Achieving Many other OWS Goals"

followed by a discussion as to how to make this strategy successful.
The OWS working group
Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech
(formerly Restore Democracy) is hosting the teach-in
with Rick Theis - founder of EcoHearth.com
on Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 5:30 pm, at 60 Wall Street.
Please attend and participate.

179 Comments

179 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by rd1 (4) 2 years ago

Yes! Please see this op-ed piece describing why a constitutional amendment that corporations are NOT people and money is NOT speech is the first and fundamental action we need to take to facilitate all other changes: http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

[-] 2 points by ClearTarget (216) 2 years ago

You sir are absolutely correct. Removing corporate personhood and taking money out of politics are the two biggest goal for OWS in my eyes.

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

What about stopping the seizure of poor people's houses by the rich?

Why not overturning Kelo vs New London?

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

We living in dictatorshipThe 1% control the army and the police, what you going to do about it?

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

I? me?
I'm so glad you asked
You can do it too
You can take advantage of the FACT that 74% of Americans want a constitutional amendment to reverse corporate & rich influence on or elections.
do you want to kvetch - or do you want to do?


Because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant,
without FIRST ending corporate personhood.
Because 83% of Americans already agree on it - 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.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success


Our current project is developing and implementing,
a voting bloc petition to create voter support for candidates throughout the country.
We want to vote for candidates who pledge to support a Constitutional Amendment that includes:

Overturning the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision which enabled the flood of secret money that is drowning our political system,

Overturning the 1976 Buckley Supreme Court decision which equates money and speech,

Eradicating the corporate personhood rights invented in the courts that
have enabled corporations to buy our democracy,

Supports campaign finance reform to level the playing field for all candidates.

The People For the American Way found 74% of Americans
want to vote for candidates who support an amendment.


Koch and the tea party and ALEC have ..the money –
….and the government –
……and they use them.


We have
..the people -
….and the vote -
……and we must use them!


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

www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium


░░░░█░.░███░░.███░░█░..░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█.█░.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░.█.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░


[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

If corporations are people, should we not bar them from having headquarters and management overseas? Having people from overseas in managerial positions?

Corporate Person-hood... well I dunno about you... but any person having any kind of speech pertaining to an election should be American... it should be an American corporation... it should have its money and manufacturing here... you know... no conflict of interest then...

Call me paranoid... but it would seem that there is massive potential for overseas corporations and overseas management to be either wholly operated by or infiltrated by foreign agents who then could or would want to sabotage our national interest... by using this corporate person-hood we have so generously given them...

Remember the Red Scare? We used to hunt down people for even the vaguest connection to communism.

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

Ultimately - our primary goal is to stop corporations from destroying democracy

[-] 1 points by MEHassa (24) 2 years ago

Stop donations to political parties from non human entities, limit donations to $10 per person per month. This way we could figure out roughly who supposed to win the elections by the number of donations. We could minimize the cost of campaign since parties must compete using lesser resources. Middle class would have more chance of winning.

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

great - and impossible - as long as the SCOTUS Citizens United & Buckley decisions are NOT overturned
ordinary legislation cannot overrule SCOTUS - that is why we need an amendment

[-] 1 points by Calsium1 (13) from Boynton Beach, FL 2 years ago

i totally agree that money needs to be taken out of politics. how about publicly funded elections where radio stations and tv stations are required by the government to give time for political discussions as part of their operating agreement. banning negative campaign adds and restoring the truth in reporting. next step should be to start imprisoning and executing corrupt politicians and corporate decision makers who are found to break the law.

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

SCOTUS Buckley & Citizens United guarantees no ads can be banned and no matter how much public money is given to a candidate, his opponent can ge 1000 times as much from koch
Thank you for your idea - but EVERYTHING starts with the amendment.

[-] 1 points by Calsium1 (13) from Boynton Beach, FL 2 years ago

i realized it was besides the point after posting. i will be following this threat to see what happens.

although if there is a big push to drive something thru wouldn't it be easier to drive it in as a package? the reason i'm saying this is that politicians will have to think how are they going to get elected the next year and anything short of totally and irreversibly separating corporation money from politics might not work. i believe that could bring out everybody including the politicians that would like to see the change happen, but are compromising at the moment to be able to do at least some good in the future.

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

some people think that way
on the other hand, ending the fillibuster or ending voter supression laws might be very worthwhile, the more we try to do in one shot, the more opposition we will get.
Most of our group is leaning to an amendment
1 reverse citizens united
2 reverse buckly
3 end corporate personhood
maybe add campaign finance & expenditure disclosure
what do you think

[-] 2 points by Calsium1 (13) from Boynton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I am new to politics and my inspiration came from this movement. So I thank you all. What I have seen is many organizations and politicians jumping on the bandwagon to spread information, collect signatures, and the gaining of momentum. Perhaps it would be time to reach out to other organizations and politicians for a comprehensive solution that is based on ethics and prepare for a big push on all fronts to wipe out corruption once and for all.

I believe that the amount of resistance does not change, but the better and more universally accepted the proposal is the more people and organizations will support it rendering the resistance futile.

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

the national budget is about 3.7 trillion

Romney raised 50 million or .0013 % of the national budget

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Buying time on tv or radio is a form of speech. Any corporation, special interest, or group has a right to express their views. Should Occupy as a group have the right to run an ad against a political candidate? Yes.

Instead of eliminating the groups right of free speech, limit the amount of money that people or groups can contribute directly or indirectly to, in favor of or against the candidates.

For example, a super pac, no matter how much money it has should be limited to spending $100 to $200 per candidate per election. Just as any person should be, wealthy or not. This puts everyone on a level playing field without removing their right of free speech.

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

I agree BUT
you can't pass such a law ( as in McCan-Feingold )
because of the Citizens United & Buckley decisions
from our friends in SCOTUS THIS MUST BE FIRST


please join us - in our working group - if you can't fly in
http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Even if corporate personhood was repealed, the wealthy persons in that corporation would individually donate to superpacs to bypass that restriction.

Not familiar with the Buckley decision, what is that?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Corporations should not have the same rights as people. including free speech. And money is not speech because then poor people would have less speech.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I agree that corps shouldn't influence elections at all, but free speech belongs to all groups, including occupy. Should Occupy have the right to support a candidate by buying TV ads?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I don't need that. Shorten elections. No ads. mandatory tv time (all channels?) for weekly debates. mandatory viewing? I guess not.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Should Occupy have the right to support a candidate by buying TV ads?

[-] 1 points by MEHassa (24) 2 years ago

As long as its the occupy movement not the political parties.

[-] 1 points by MEHassa (24) 2 years ago

If the ad was brought by political parties, people would be indifferent towards it. But if an ad was brought by JP Morgan, Bank of America, or CEO of Goldman Sachs, people would know what its all about and would ignore the expensive ad. Well ofcourse you have to rule that all adds must state its source.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

As I just said above No "I don't need that........No ads" got it?

[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

I would like to know why campaign finance reform and lobbying reform does not come first? I hope these guys have a good answer - I will be there!

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

Thanx for the music and lyrics -
but we are mired in a rut called GREED
We need to disarm the 1%
fire the owners!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 2 years ago

in that case Unions aren't people either.

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

correct - there are some of "my" co-conspirators who might disagree - but here is my concept - If the XYZ oil company wants its shareholders to support candidate A, the XYZ oil company can write its stockholders to send money to candidate A If the STU unionl company wants its members to support candidate B, the STU union can write its members to send money to candidate B


do you think that would be fair ?

[-] 0 points by Cubs101 (-49) 2 years ago

sure, it's fine with me as it is a free country.

[-] -1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

There is an underlying tone to this discussion that preconcieves the premse that the American people are stupid and cant see thru any corporate shill type advertising.

I disagree. the people can watch an ad a determine whether it is honest or baloney.

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

the people can watch an ad and determine whether
it is honest or baloney.

People can listen to nazi propaganda and
be smart enough not vote for hitler
People can listen to "i am not a crook" and
be smart enough not to elect nixon People can listen to "i dont remember Iran-Contra" and
be smart enough to not to elect reagan
People can listen to "WMDs" and
be smart enough to not to elect bush

the people can watch an ad and determine whether
it is honest or baloney.


WHICH PEOPLE ARE THOSE ?


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

Thats why we REelected crooks like reagan & nixon & bush


no one believed "I don't remember Iran/Contrs" no one believed "I am not a crook" no one believed "WMDs" no one believed the Kerry swift boat ads
no one believes Obama was born in Kenya
no one believes romney is lying
no one believes fox Right?

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Obama is certainly worse than Reagan or Bush. ntReagan will go down as history evolves as one of America's greatest Presidents. Just because you dont like him doesnt mean everyone didnt like him. JFK was maybe the worst President of modern times.

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

Reagan was senile before he was elected Reagan comitted treason with Iran contra & secret negotiations with the Iranians before the elections

[-] -1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Corporations are not people... and they're not made up of people, either! Okay, well, if they WERE made up of people, those people wouldn't have any free speech rights! OWS, a corporate body, has free speech rights because I like what they say! Let's silence everyone I disagree with!

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

All PEOPLE should have the same limits & rules
All non-PEOPLE should have the same limits & rules
....[corporations, unions, non profits]
AND
PEOPLE ARE NOT NON-PEOPLE just one possible number: people can contribute up to $3000/person .............................................non-people can contribute up tp $10,000/entity


as long as corporations are not people, this can be done

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Are you proposing these rules?

Do you want to create ten thousand non-profit groups overnight? That's what would happen.

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

you make a fair point. - koch could create 10,000 non-profits.
BUT . With all corporations no longer having personhood rights or "equality" -
laws could be passed to avoid this. I confess that I am not enough of a corporate / constitutional lawyer, but if you look at the state laws that controlled corporations before 1886, you will see what a corporation COULD be without corporate personhood:


In 1791, the 10th Amendment left control of corporations to state legislatures. Corporate charters were very explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10-15 years. In order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to present a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. When corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were revoked by the state legislatures. Amazingly reasonable – until the lawyers & judges stepped in.

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

How about some principle?

How about, people can join together to do anything that does not hurt anyone else?

How about, people have the same rights to non-intervention in their activities as a group that they do individually?

And do you think it's okay for the government to burn books if they were published by a corporation? This was a cornerstone of the Citizen's united decision.

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

How about, people can join together to do anything that does not hurt anyone else?
How about 2000 people standing on a bridge that has a capacity for 100?

How about, people have the same rights to non-intervention in their activities as a group that they do individually?
So if I, a GM employee, has the legal right to go into my local cinema, all GM employees have the right to come in with me?

And do you think it's okay for the government to burn books if they were published by a corporation? This was a cornerstone of the Citizen's united decision.
Citizens United had nothing to do with burning books or destroying any media - that is the purview of the communists and nazis and catholics.


In stead of trying to patch this disaster with bandaids -
the simple, straight forward approach is OBVIOUS
*******************
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE
*******************

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Okay, apparently you have not read the actual deliberations or arguments stated in the court during the hearing on the citizen's united case. I will wait here while you do so.

Hold music...

You're back! During that time, I'm certain you did a cursory check of Wikipedia to get some background information on the topic.

heh-HEM:

"During the original oral argument, then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book."

As far as your absurd comparison with the cinema goes, entering private property is a privilege, not a right. A right is an activity that requires non-intervention by another party. Do I have a right to free speech? Why yes, I do. Just like you do. Do I have a right to speak on this forum? That is up to the owners of the forum. Do I have a right to speak in your living room? That is up to you.

Do I have a right to publish a book? Yes. Does every entity? Yes, because no one is hurt by book publishing.

Where public rights are concerned, if you (as a human, not a GM employee) own a gun, get a driver's license, visit a library, or publish a book, then every other human has those rights unless they have proven themselves unsafe to others in doing so. They are natural rights.

As far as the bridge goes, if this is a public bridge, they are hurting the people on the bridge who may not want to be there, or are unaware of the capacity. Assuming they are all aware and are attempting to collapse the bridge, they are hurting the people who payed for the bridge to be there (the taxpayers), they are hurting the people who's right to travel on public property has been impeded by the bridge collapse, and they are hurting the people who will have to pay for the collapse to be cleaned up.

So, as you have now been informed, such a scenario is not a truly victim-less crime. You smoking weed is a victim-less crime. Me (or anyone else) publishing a book is a victim-less crime.

Surely you were intentionally attempting to sound silly, right? Comparing book publishing to intentional bridge collapse?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

OWS is a corporation. Is OWS permitted to act collectively (including the expenditure of time and money) to further their goals and promote candidates?

What about other corporations like NAACP, NARAL, AFL/CIO?

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Of course they have free speech rights. If you are assuming I would think NARAL doesn't have free speech rights, as a corporation, merely because I am calling for free speech rights, then I don't know what to say.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well if the NARAL corporation has free speech rights then how about EXXON?

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Of course.

Again, why not?

How is NARAL or Exxon hurting me by speaking?

If they are somehow hurting my tender ears with their words, then we can get the government to intervene. Until then, free speech is free speech.

Do you think it is okay for the government to burn books? This was a cornerstone of the citizen's united decision.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So we agree. Free speech for everyone. Citizens U was decided correctly.

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Let's burn some books in celebration! Yay!

We do agree, free speech for everyone. I don't know how this can be spun into limiting free speech.

How does someone else's speech limit your own?

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I suppose the argument goes that that if someone can shout louder than I can they have greater free-speech rights. I don't agree, but the argument exists.

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

You don't agree? Then how can you justify your opposition to Citizen's united?

You just admitted that someone else's speech does not limit your own.

Don't tell me you are going along with something just to fit in.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why would I oppose Citizens U?

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Sorry, I read your reply wrong.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

corporations are not people. All groups should be handled equally, but not like people!. Support OWS! Vote out pro citizens united republicans!

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Sure!. And especially vote out the political party who nominated the supreme court justices who voted for citizens united. Who would that be? republicans? be honest. I don't need a link for that.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The logic of voting for or against a party does not follow. Stevens dissented in Citizens U and he was nominated and confirmed by Republicans.

Maybe the better course is just to vote for the best candidate and put away the blinders when it comes to party.

What do you think?

[-] 1 points by able123 (174) 2 years ago

Americans Have Three Choices In November: Bushbamney, Third-Party or Nobody

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/

Romney and Obama are the Same Bushbamney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC311qHA1xA

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There is a fourth choice:

Vote for divided government.

Americans have voted for divided Gov 66% of the time in the last 50 years. When they are divided it reduces their ability to hurt us. Minimize the damage.

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

No! We need to vote based on party only! Forget the issues!

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Yes! Let's let the 1% corral us into voting for their candidates because none of the others are electable! Baaa-aaah! They have food! Moooooo!

The great thing is, if people decided to quit voting for their stupid candidates, the third partiers would be the the electable ones. This will never happen, of course, because naive morons will continue to vote for the same establishment candidates like good little sheep.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

The great thing is, if people decided to quit voting for their stupid candidates, the third partiers would be the the electable ones.


The great thing is, if the easter bunny laid eggs, no one would be hungry.


The great thing is, if roads were shorter, we'd get there faster.


The great thing is, if planet was smaller, the bad people would move avway.


The great thing is that we have alec & grover & david & charles who are smart enough to know how to to get their lemmings to vote for their stooges like willard and walker and kasich and christie -
while getting us not to vote for anyone.
The great thing is that we have alec & grove & david & charles


[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Baaa-aaah!

The right wing is very angry at the GOP. Trust me. Help stir up anger against them along with the Dems and we'll get somewhere. Otherwise, you're fighting for the status quo.

Moooooo!

[-] -1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Agreed! Concurrent opinions where all republican nominees. no blinders here. Many cities & states have voted on it. Party line. no blinders. Are you seein the pattern? Will you defend the cit united supporting republicans? Vote out pro citizen united republicans

[-] 2 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Vote out pro Citizens United Republicans AND Democrats.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Vote out anti immigrant republicans

[-] 1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Vote out anti-immigrant Republicans AND Democrats.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Vote out anti gay republicans

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Does that imply that you support anti-gay democrats, since if you simply did not support anti-gay candidates you would not have written republican?

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

I support anyone with a "D" after their name! Baaa-aaaah!

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I would not support any candidate who is homophobic. Of course it is the republican party that has been captured by southern right wing wacko religious fanatics. Right? Support OWS Vote out anti sep of church and state republicans!

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

There are anti-gays in both parties. May I ask, why are you here if the only thing that interest you is breaking the forum rules?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

What rule? Support OWS. Vote out anti union politicians!

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

Arf! Arf! The parties threw us dumb voters a bone to fight over. Arf! Arf! I want it! I want it! Mine! Mine!

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You callin me a dumb dog? Support OWS. Vote out anti public option health care politicians

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

You done wagging your tail for the democrats.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Offensive! just another school yard bully tactic! unimpressed! Support OWS. Vote out anti fin reform politicians.

[-] 1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

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

single issue voters are dangerous
and afraid to think
anti-choice
anti-gay
anti-incumbent


all are religions


[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Vote out anti 99% politicians. Don't give your vote to the 1%.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Vote out climate change denying republicans!

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

And now you are telling on me? you can't keep up. you have no good arguments and so you want to silence me. You want to tell me how to vote but I can't express how I believe you should vote? Sounds like a republican!

I never told you or no one else how to vote. I have a simple argument, POLITICAL TALK IS AGAINST THE FORUM RULES. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

As for me, I'm a socialist. free health-care, free-education, no death penalty, etc... The democrats nor the republicans offer those things, so I vote far left. However this is not important. This site should not be used to express voting tendencies.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You just expressed your voting tendencies and have threatened me because mine differ. Are you sure your not republican? Anyway ok I will leave your republicans alone. Support OWS! Vote out anti abortion politicians! Is that ok? Will you not attack me now. Can I somehow submit all my posts to you 1st for your approval? So you won't attack me.

[-] 0 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Vote out anti volcker rule republicans

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

jart, when you get a chance send a down voting bot on this guy. He's breaking the forum rules on every post.

search marker = 12322

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

And now you are telling on me? you can't keep up. you have no good arguments and so you want to silence me. You want to tell me how to vote but I can't express how I believe you should vote? Sounds like a republican!

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The point is that blind allegiance to one party is not the answer, particularly when they coerce one another to vote against their own beliefs to further some party cause or in exchange for pork in their District or State.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I agree blind allegiance is bad. We should take blinders off and acknowledge that one party is closer to the needs of the 99% and can made to serve us. While the other party is too far gone in the pocket of the 1%. We can see that by how the 1% corp interests are flailing against one party and not the other. Yes. Don't be blind. I agree. And I am not. I also see that the 1% want us to get progressives to vote no consent to split the vote. See 'dat?

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

You're just here to corrupt the movement with your political crap. I should have known. Read what the front page of this site says. We DON'T LIKE POLITICIANS AND DON'T PLAY THEIR GAME. You're not an OWS supporter, you're just a lame troll.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You don't like the truth. The dems can be made to serve the 99%. The repubs are too far gone. Support OWS. Vote anti public option republicans.

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

So, what you're saying is that's it's OK to break the forum rules? Right? What you're saying is use whatever means you have at your disposal to pass your message. Break the rules. Civil disobedience.

Does that mean you don't mind if I use bots and trojans against your computer?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Another threat.? I've already asked you if I can change my behavior to avoid your attack whatta ya say?. I'll lay off the republicans if you promise not to hurt me? support OWS. Vote out pro death penalty politicians!

[-] 0 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Factsrfun admitted he's a Democratic Party hack, VQkag. Why don't you do the same thing and get the fuck out of this forum...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/#comment-739976

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I'm independent. Voting "no consent" is what the 1% wants. don't do it. One party can be made to serve the 99%. We must co opt it. support OWS. Vote out pro big oil politicians.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Now you threaten using internet terror tactics.

POS - blind marcher for the greedy corrupt.


[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (13) 39 minutes ago

So, what you're saying is that's it's OK to break the forum rules? Right? What you're saying is use whatever means you have at your disposal to pass your message. Break the rules. Civil disobedience.

Does that mean you don't mind if I use bots and trojans against your computer? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

May I ask an unrelated question. What's the point of copy/pasting the comment you are replying to? We can read, and that's why there's a reply button. You're just spamming the forum with that repetition. Really, what is the point? I don't understand.

Unless of course, you sometimes manipulate the quotes for your advantage?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That's to prevent you from editing your comment after the fact and it also lets others know what the comment was responding to as these threads can be messy all by them self.

Fair enough Blind Marcher?


[-] 1 points by JoeWinters (13) 9 minutes ago

May I ask an unrelated question. What's the point of copy/pasting the comment you are replying to? We can read, and that's why there's a reply button. You're just spamming the forum with that repetition. Really, what is the point? I don't understand.

Unless of course, you sometimes manipulate the quotes for your advantage? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You are just here to defend the corrupt status-quo by urging the people to opt-out.

That is your political agenda.

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

I don't want anyone to op-out. I think it's super important to vote personally. I just think this site is not the place to talk about it. It's against the forum rules.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So its OK for you to push YOUR (?) Agenda. But not for others to express their thoughts on how to fight the greed Corruption and crime in this country.

Eat Shit and Bark at the moon Blind Marcher.

[-] 0 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Factsrfun admitted he's a Democratic Party hack, DKAtoday. Why don't you do the same thing and get the fuck out of this forum...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/#comment-739976

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

It's not my agenda buddy, those are the forum rules. Why you don't want to respect this forum, the one who made it (jart), and the moderators who wrote the forum rules is beyond me.

All I can say is you are a troll.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (7469) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 minutes ago

So its OK for you to push YOUR (?) Agenda. But not for others to express their thoughts on how to fight the greed Corruption and crime in this country.

Eat Shit and Bark at the moon Blind Marcher. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink


I know its not your agenda you are a blind marcher and are just following the orders given to you by your handlers. The Corrupt greedy criminals throw their money away when they hire you - but I suppose they figure that you are a distraction.


[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (13) 6 minutes ago

It's not my agenda buddy, those are the forum rules. Why you don't want to respect this forum, the one who made it (jart), and the moderators who wrote the forum rules is beyond me.

All I can say is you are a troll. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Factsrfun admitted he's a Democratic Party hack, DKAtoday. Why don't you do the same thing and get the fuck out of this forum...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/#comment-739976

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Am I fwustwating your attempts to get people to Opt-Out ?

Too Bad.

Am I fwustwating your attempts to get people to call for an Article V convention so that the Koch's supporters can steal and Trash the Constitution?

Too Bad.

We do not like blind marchers here. The only reason I can see that the forum is letting you hang around is that they figure your a good example of the evil we confront.

[-] 1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Fuck the Republicans. Fuck the Democrats. And fuck Demopublican plants like you, DKAtoday. Factsrfun admitted he's a Democratic Party hack. Why don't you do the same thing and get the fuck out of this forum...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/#comment-739976

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Half of the 99% are Republicans. Why are you hating on the 99%/

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I am not a hater. I am the 99%! Don't throw your vote away. Vote out pro ALEC politicians

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Turns out the 99% is about 47% Dem and 44 % Rep.

The top 1 % is 57 % Rep and 36% Dem.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/153341/10_fun_facts_about_the_top_1_percent

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Whatever, we are the 99% Support OWS. Vote early and often ;) Vote out pro ALEC politicians

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Really 50% are republicans?

Was that on a census report?

What percentage is Green or Independent or other?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Turns out the 99% is about 47% Dem and 44 % Rep.

The top 1 % is 57 % Rep and 36% Dem.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/153341/10_fun_facts_about_the_top_1_percent

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

You are full of shit, VQkag. BOTH parties - Republican AND Democratic - are "too far gone in the pocket of the 1%". There's not a dime's difference between them. Hell, Obama and Romney are giving the same speeches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC311qHA1xA

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The parties are vastly different. On the issues that matter, Alternative energy: Dems for, repubs against! on fin reform: Dems for stronger, repubs weakened Dodd/Frank! Health reform: Dems support pub option, repubs against. Corp personhood: Dems against, repubs for. Science/evolution: Dems for, repubs against (wackos!). Tax wealthy, Dems for, repubs against. Womens rights; Dems for, repubs against. Gay rights: dems for, repubs against. Climate change: dems believe, repubs do not. EPA: dems for, repubs against. You are trying to confuse people. Don't believe able123. He knows these facts are true but he wants everyone to throw there votes away. Vote your interests. Vote based on the above issues and the positions the parties have staked out. but when the election is over we MUST continue protesting, pressuring or the dems will lose there backbone and fall back in line with the corp 1%.

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Political babbling troll. Enough with this political talk, IT IS AGAINST THE FORUM RULES.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I like V. He seems like a good Left supporter. This is a Left movement. He reminds me of Zen. Minus the poems.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

didn't you say you were leavin yesterday?. What happened.? miss me?

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Now you are threatening me? In order to silence me? What if I promised to stop saying vote out republicans. Would that be ok? Will you not attack me if I promise to lay off the repubs.?

I don't care about the republicans, I care about the political talk. Lay off all political talk if you don't want to be attacked. This is not a site for political discussions. Anarchists are against the government, not for it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

But you mentioned your political beliefs. Is the forum just for your political beliefs.? Or is it just not for mine? I see lots of political discussion that hasn't generated your threats of attack. Please don't attack me. I'll be good. Support OWS <---- ok? Vote out anti socialist politicians! <----ok?

[-] -2 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

No. My contractors are late two days. So, Iv'e decided to prepare a bot and some viruses just for you. Iv'e had enough of your political babblings.

BTW - you should upgrade your connection to IPv6, I just saw you were using IPv4. I have a few honeypots out for you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Now you are threatening me? In order to silence me? What if I promised to stop saying vote out republicans. Would that be ok? Will you not attack me if I promise to lay off the repubs.?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I am responding to the political talk regarding voting "no consent' I submit it is a ruse to have progressive OWS supporters throw their votes away and as such is republican partisan electioneering. Support OWS. Vote out pro big oil republicans

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

If you do not understand what voting NO CONSENT will accomplish (and clearly you do not understand the issue based on your posts), why not try to find out more about it? Instead, you've picked-up the D banner and run with it -- worried your employers might be out of a job come November?

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

retired! Been carryin liberal/progressive banner since they fought for civil rights! Since I learned they brought us Social security, since I learned they support unions and help for the poor! Since I learned the R's and conservatives are exactly opposite. When you say the parties are the same I know you are a plant! They ain't! I understand no consent. you mean to split the vote! to help YOUR republican rmployes! Support OWS vote out pro norquist pols! <another difference.

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

I don't see the rule I've broken. Sorry. Please don't attack my computer. I will behave. I promise. Support OWS. Vote out anti Volcker rule politicians.! Is that ok

I hope for your sake that your machine isn't new.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Now what is the problem? I've submitted to your threats. Please don't attack me! I'll be good. Support OWS! Vote out anti alternative energy politicians.

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

I don't what rules your talkin about. You just want to further your partisan republican dogma. I intend to respond fairly and in a civil way. You guys are just abusive and uncivil. vote out anti gay politicians

Did you read the forum rules? And no, I'M NOT REPUBLICAN. You would know that if you read many of my postings. I'm a hard core socialist and I have nothing against gays. Ask jart for Pete's sake.

Why don't you take a moment to read the forum rules? Here's the link.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/moderating-policies-will-be-reposted-somewhere-pro/

"We do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all. We have removed election material for Obama, Paul, Warren, Paul, Cain, Paul, Perry, Paul, the green party, Paul, Nader, Paul, and did I mention Paul? The spamming by the Ron Lawl 2012 fan club was getting out of hand. We will continue to remove such material and any call for the Paul 2012 campaign will, at this point, be considered spamming. End of. We're tired of hearing about it. Main street debates are also largely off topic."

I'm creating a bot just for you. It will be ready in a few days. If you stop now, I won't do it. It's up to you. Remember TIOUAISE and zendog? They aren't here anymore because of me.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I don't see the rule I've broken. Sorry. Please don't attack my computer. I will behave. I promise. Support OWS. Vote out anti Volcker rule politicians.! Is that ok

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

Americans Have Three Choices In November: Bushbamney, Third-Party or Nobody

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/

Romney and Obama are the Same Bushbamney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC311qHA1xA

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

don't throw your votes away. It is what the 1% wants. Vote out anti gay politicians.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Don't throw your vote away! it is whatthe 1% wants! Vote out anti Alternative energy politicians

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

I don't care if you respond or initiate political talk, you are breaking the forum rules. What you should do if you really care about OWS is report political talk to the moderators. As far as I'm concerned, you're propagating this problem on the site. Iv'e already warned the moderators about you. They might ban you, or just use a down voting bot. We'll see what happens when they get my message.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I don't what rules your talkin about. You just want to further your partisan republican dogma. I intend to respond fairly and in a civil way. You guys are just abusive and uncivil. vote out anti gay politicians

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

"Of course they supposedly differ on social and other wedge issues the ruling elite contrive, revive and broadcast incessantly through mainstream media to keep people divided and fighting each other rather than united and fighting them. But once they get elected, what really changes?"

NOT MUCH...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

On all the above economic, health, political issues they differ. They also differ on social/wedge issues. media or not repubs deny climate change, hate gays, weaken all regulations against helping poor. You have to take the blinders off. But you know. You are pretending. inorder to get progressives to throw their votes away.! Don't believe this guy no consent will not work. Lots of people vote no consent by staying home. It is useless. Vote on the issues and pressure the pols after the election. this movement most grow. it takes years. Support OWS. Vote out anti abortion republicans

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

No, not an independent -- pushing Ds too hard for that. Voting NO CONSENT is very different from staying home. But I can see why you'd use that conflation to make your political point that we can only vote for a candidate.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Voting "no consent" will not generate enough votes. You will simply split the vote. Lets convince right wing wacko religious fanatics throw their votes away! That would be useful. Split their votes. Progressives she stick together and take back the D's. Support OWS. vote out pro norquist pols

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

Romney and Obama are the Same Bushbamney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC311qHA1xA

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Vote out anti abortion politicians

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

I agree, we should vote out Republicans.

While we are at it, let's vote out the party that nominated the justices that supported the "reverse robin-hood" assenting decision in Kelo V New London.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Vote your interests! Support OWS! Vote out pro norquist politicians

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Vote out the demopublicans!

[-] -2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Do not vote blindly without understanding the issues you care about and how your representatives vote on those issues. When people tell you vote everyone out, everyone (the parties) are the same, Remember one party gets 92% of wall st contribution and is against fin regulation, one will cut taxes for the 1%, one is against health care for all, one denies climate change, one supports citizens untited, one supports tax subsidies for the oil corp, one hates gays, & minorites. One party supports unions/labor, will raise taxes on wealthy, invest in green jobs, maintain social security/medicare, will fix obamacare, Vote the issues. don't throw you votes away! Support the 99%. vote out pro norquist pols!

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Go ahead and look up the Citizen's United decision. I'll wait here while you read the Wikipedia article.

You done? Good!

During the initial deliberation, the representative for the federal election commission claimed the standing law would allow them to ban certain books.

The court ruled that the law was too extensive.

How does someone else publishing a book hurt you?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

LMFAO!. I don't know what you're talkin about. And I won't waste time trying to. Money out of campaigns! public funding! Shortened campaigns! debates every week, no ads! Mandated voting for all!. Vote out pro ALEC politicians

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

I'm sorry you don't and can't understand!

More government spending! Sink our children in debt! Two legs bad! Four legs good! O-bomb-ya 2012! Baaa-aaaah! Feed us our allowance, mighty one!

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Cut military spending, cut corp welfare, cut fossel fuel subsidies, cut corp loopholes. cut middle class taxes. vote out pro norquist pols

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

forget the debt! more distraction. Job creation! Grow the economy & the debt will decrease. vote out pro norquist politicians

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Forget the debt LOL....

Sorry, I didn't realize you were trolling.

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

So if only "one" of the parties supports those issues you mentioned, (Besides, is climate change denial part of the Republican platform? Or is it just an idea you have expanded to cover the entire party based on the statements of a few?) then how come the "other" party did not correct those problems while they had a supermajority?

The answer, of course to the observant people in the room, is that the parties actually stand for the same things. The rest is an act to fool naive people into supporting them, or thinking they are not in league with the other.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

they never had enough votes to stop a filibuster. And Dems are not perfect. They have serious problems. They are prone to corruption just as easily.! They also have no backbone to stand up to R's. So we must continually protest/pressure all pols (D's as well) The D's can be made to serve the 99%. The rs are too far gone. Look at the issues. vote out pro citizens united pols

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

What's the deal with citizen's united, anyway? No one has answered me on this, do you think it is okay for the government to burn books? This was a cornerstone of the decision.

[+] -4 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

So you support citizens united?

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

I never said that. I asked you first. Do you think it is permissible for the government to ban books?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

No. I think the govt should overturn/repeal/undo the citizens united decision that allows unlimited money in political campaigns. Do you support that or not? Support OWS. vote out anti public funding of campaign pols!

[+] -5 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Climate change is clearly an issue most R's deny, Some dems who dont deny still vote with big oil there are pols in both parties Who vote with big oil. Fewer in one party than the other. it isn't simple, it isn't black n white. You most vote out pro big oil pols. Be sophisticated. pressure your rep. get them on the record. then continue the pressure after the election. don't go to sleep.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

OWS is a corporation. Is OWS permitted to act collectively (including the expenditure of time and money) to further their goals and promote candidates?

What about other corporations like NAACP, NARAL, AFL/CIO?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of Corporation

1a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild; b : the municipal authorities of a town or city

2 : a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession

3 : an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state

I don't see OWS falling into any of these categories? Do you.... No.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

They incorporated in 2011.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Oh, you mean certain OWS movements in some cities have become non-profit organizations to handle the large amounts of donations.

That does not mean that THEY incorporated. You still don't understand the structure I see.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Legally OWS became a corporation and subject to State and Federal laws (BTW even if they do not incorporate but behave like a corporation the State will treat them as such) .

Once they become a corporation without Citizens U they could be prohibited from spending money to further political goals.

Free speech for everyone. If you form a group like OWS, AFL, or the AFT you must free to pool your resources and advocate for your political aims.

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

Miriam Webster is NOT the constitutional authority THE US courts are

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

So what are you saying, that because OWS-DC registers as a corp, all OWS movements in different cities are bound to them? This happened in 2011?

I don't think so.... here is a motion files in 2012 by OWS-Charlotte, we are not incorporated http://media.charlotteobserver.com/static/images/pdf/OccupyCharlotteComplaint.pdf

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Instead of Merriam Webster OWS decided to incorporate under the laws of the District of Columbia where they clearly meet the definition of a corporation.

Unlike the vast majority of corporations that spend little or no money on political activism for OWS it is a principal focus. As a result Citizens U has a greater relevance to OWS than most corps.

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

Is that why the corporate machine, thru the romney superpacs, had such difficulty getting their puppet nomonated?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Or maybe money spent in general on getting candidates elected is really not that effective.

Do you make voting decisions based on political ads that you see or hear?

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

I am not the "average" voter
but the "average" voter elected three criminals
"i am not a crook"
"Iran -Contra - whats that ?"
"WMDs & yellow cake"


willard's superpac money buried his competition

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Nobody thinks they are the average voter, including the average voter.

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

true - but if my definition is valid - I voted for none of them .... therefore ....

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The folks that politicians pay to create and run the ads are experts at persuasion. The same folks are often conducting pols on the effectiveness of their own ads. Sounds fishy to me. Could be that they are just really good at tricking politicians out of their war chests (not exactly a Herculean task). I wonder just how many voters are swayed by all of this money (PAC and other) that everyone is so worried about..

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Again, OWS in DC being incorporated does not represent OWS-Charlotte which is NOT incorporated.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So as soon as OWS in DC became incorporated they lost their rights to spend money in order to further their political goals?

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

the present ( IRS ) law is far more complicated than this

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

All organizations mu st be constitutionally treated the same - as non people [FYI - OWS does not promote candidates] [and time is never an issue] If we don't do make all equal, is the NAACP or a union for example going to match the koch brothers $200,000,000 donation?


Most proposals would allow states to set the rules for donations by organizations. For example, for profit corporations could have one limit and non-profits another - but this will require some further tweaking. such as a non-profit limit for non-profits of $50 per contributor. L.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Free speech is a US Constitutional issues. Doesn't Federal Law trump the State?

BTW Labor Unions also spend hundreds of millions of dollars to bribe candidates.