John Verhoef well they get fines

agree

Say for an example you and your socialist friends start a fedora company. Your company is very successful and you are filed as a corporation in Washington or wherever socialists live. Say then your man bernie sanders is running for the 2032 elections and you and your socialist pals want to support him after all your socialist fedora company’s public image revolves around socialist progressivism. Why wouldn’t that company be allowed to support that candidate? With respect to the responsibilities your company doesn’t drunk drive so it cannot really crash into a playground and get a life sentence.

@@travistaylor5305 besides the fact you are setting up a straw man argument I will bite. When limiting corporate funding of campaigns you are not limiting the rights of any individual. Everyone in that company still has the right to pull from personal funds to give to the candidate of their choice. My argument is that a company has greater access to funds than any one individual (billionaire or someone who utilizes welfare) and in turn creates greater inequality in the effectiveness of any individual to lobby their government. By giving lobbying rights to corporation s you hinder the rights of the majority of people by further reducing their ability to enact change through interest groups and campaign donations. Does it completely get rid of an indivuals right no but it does limit it. Think of it like inflation. Inflation of the dollar devalues it and hurts the finances of those who's wealth doesn't increase with inflation . ( Which is regulated through government regulation and is good for everyone) Inflation of campaign contributions devalues the common person's contribution which will not grow with the surplus of money being funneled. (Which is no longer regulated to the same degree) This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue this is a common worker vs industry.

pragmaticpolitics does not matter if profit from breaking law is bigger than fine from breaking law

The same reason churches should not fund governments, is the same reason why corps should not fund political movements. Yes they can get together and discuss their ideas with people but corps should not use their money to influence results.

I don’t know of anyone who says corporations don’t benefit from spending money. Not sure who this was directed to.

There’s a debate as to how much they benefit. A lot of academic research out there in political science that shows that corporate donations don’t impact political outcomes as much as many people like to believe.

@@cocodrillo1012 ??? Really ???

@@recoveryrocks1 yup! The impact of corporate donations also differ significantly by party. In other words: Republicans are more likely to pursue the policy preference of their corporate donors than Democrats. Also, people don’t realize but the policy preferences of corporations & the poor/working-class people align more often than people think. They often want the same thing.

@@cocodrillo1012 Any research that you can show me which supports this? Thanks.

Press/ media is a tool that anyone can use, while a corporation is a tool that is used only by a few. Though one can argue that our media is owned by corporations, they cannot censor everything, information will always leak out through independent media, thus they are just different tools that some have access to more than others, and yes that difference truly matters. If they were both the same, then we would truly live like in the dystopian 1984.

Being taxed isn't the standard on allowances under the law. The Canadian lawyer living in Manhattan was certainly paying taxes and was not allowed to exercise the same right these corporations now enjoy. As far as not being a US citizen, corporations may be registered in America but may have board members who are not US citizens that now have a larger say than actual US citizens. Also, these corporations have only one goal which is pecuniary. They're fiduciary obligations mean that their sole goal is increasing profits even if it goes against what is best for the country or the people.

J A really how come some of the largest firms are interested in supporting democrats who border socialism with respect to taxes and anti business regulations?

Sorry I’m not very financially literate, particularly with stocks, but couldn’t corporations justify their political expenditure as an investment that would be in the interest of the shareholder? Another way I could ask this is why would we treat political expenditure differently than something like advertisement expenditure, and in terms of how it would affect your shares in their company?

@@joebidet3606 good point you would also have to ban charity giving

Inalienable rights aren't real

A for-profit corporation does not have a unified goal the way the Sierra Club does. Most people have no idea what stocks they own, so to say they have a voice on wich political candidate to support is absurd. In fact, the Conservatives in the Hobby Lobby case make that exact same point about religion-they said a publically traded company couldnt do what Honny Lobby did b/c there are too many people to have a common religion.

But when those powerful groups of people start to use their strings and special privileges that other people don't have, what do you think happens?

@@criss3619 "those" powerful groups of people? do you mean corporations, unions, charities? You can't distinguish which groups of people are protected by the Constitution and which are not. Justice & the equal application of the law is blind. I believe you want to put your thumb on the scale.

@@evanb4189 I disagree. Shareholders have a unified goal of sharing in the profits of the company.

@@criss3619 so you would deny some groups their 1st Amendment rights? Who decides which groups are allowed and which are not?

no cause the action would be the crime. In Citizen untied the gov the advertising an anti Clinton a documentary a crime.

No, you also have to think of the murder aspect of the case

@@huntercrawford6490 Murder? You mean like how the US is responsible for war crimes on top of war crimes within war crimes in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Laugh all you want, but don't forget about independent press like most people have ;p

Hopefully your being sarcastic here? I think that's exactly the issue: only the extremely wealthy can ever be heard at all, especially be our federal politicians. Why would they listen to me? I can only spare a few dollars for their next campaign.

@@RCPoliComm Right. I am sarcastic. Let's all circumvent the warlords who live on our blood in 2020, by whatever means necessary. Even through (gasp) social media! That's why there's a democracy in the first place, εν αρχή.

Imagine unironically complaining about a "lack of balance" and also criticizing this video for not saying what you want it to say. The lack of self-awareness is astounding. It is legitimately disgusting that you would compare Citizens United to Korematsu and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so. The slippery slope fallacy is such a tiresome and ridiculous argument. If you're going to critique this video on the grounds of a slippery slope fallacy while engaging in your own multi-fallacious arguments. Corporate personhood has existed since before America and before the Constitution. Corporations have always held the right to a certain level of speech as well as the 5th Amendment, 14th Amendment, etc. This isn't a new concept under Citizens United. I pray to God you don't actually educate any children because you are totally unqualified to do so. You are the posterchild for the anti-intellectualism in the name of political ideology that plagues this country

Yeah I don’t get what they were going on about. Khan Academy got two law professors to describe the case from two view points. I genuinely want to know how somebody is able to disregard half of the video just because an opposing view point exists. And to imply that anything they said was factually incorrect...

@@mooninites755 dusting off the hyperbolic language and name-calling for the likes, well done. Tots gives support to a comeback 👍 Truly though, wishing you all the best in life. Maybe light a scented candle or something? You sound a bit stressed. Happy holidays! ❤️

@@thebaglady83 1. Corporations get free speech not only as part of "corporate personhood" but also as part of "association of individuals". 2. Why should we prevent citizens united from airing their documentary during 30 days before primaries?

That all parties in the video do not uncritically vomit up what you believe to be true about the case does not deprive it of educational value. You don't want both sides and interpretations explained? What is a "balanced" reading to you, if not what was done here? What "facts" -- and I mean facts, not opinions -- did the other party get "wrong?" I'll ask another question -- which constitutional rights should corporations have and not have? Be very specific, and please provide a consistent standard as to why they have certain rights and not others. The right to vote that you cited is specifically reserved for American citizens -- aka individuals. You don't exercise the right to vote as a collective. You do engage in speech collectively (labor unions, nonprofit advocacy, student organizations, and so on, so forth). Stating otherwise would uproot hundreds of years of case law. Corporations obviously have constitutional rights; unless you're seriously trying to say that the FBI is allowed to conduct a warrantless raid on the office of the ACLU, and the government is allowed to seize corporate property without due process. Do you realize what can be construed as a campaign period? Under an expansive definition (because we're dealing in legal precedents here that usually apply more broadly than the specific law being examined), you can consider any primary election as part of the "campaign season." The primaries, and thereby the election campaign, go on basically year-round, and there are congressional elections every two years -- presidential every four. This is not including state-specific off-year elections, nor ballot initiatives that occur in off-years. How do you draw up an exception for news media? What qualifies an organization as a "news" organization for the purpose of campaign finance restrictions (which include, by the way, airing a documentary in the run-up to an election)? You'd have to have the FEC function as a credentialization organization to determine that on an individual basis, it'd take too long to resolve (the election would come and go before any kind of court process wrapped up, if there were dispute), and it'd more than likely discriminate against smaller companies who do not have the funds, numbers or other resources to navigate through the paperwork and general legal trouble, while favoring the already-established media giants. I could go on at length about why that is. It'd be so easy for a large corporation to simply establish an arm of itself as a legitimate media organization for the purposes of the law. But more importantly -- as Justice Kennedy stated in the opinion, the First Amendment doesn't permit a process which essentially requires you to hire a corporate lawyer to be able to speak on the most pressing issues of our time. In any case, the "ban on publishing" is unacceptable either way, but you're not even dealing with the very limited timespan you're suggesting, as I mentioned earlier -- why should the government be allowed to restrict publication of a book for months at all because its publisher is exercising their First Amendment right? Since when does the government have the authority to determine when books containing particular subject matter can be published? That is literal censorship. I have gone on for way too long about this. Hopefully you understand now why people have a problem with the prevailing view of Citizens United. More likely, based on your original comment, you have absolutely no desire to learn anything and will likely dismiss this as an invalid argument that somehow proves my allegiance to various corporate money sources.

NeptuneJocTM I do not....