Villy but you’re here now! That’s what matters!

I was against citizens United since day one. The only thing that sucks more than being old is that I've watched this crap happen

Same!!! Dont think most people realize one politician or president is NOT going to change this, we're gonna have to literally mob up and fight against the corporatocracy!!!!

“Corporations United” The SCOTUS should be locked up for this.

Slightly more depressing in 2022

Well said.

Watching in 2022 is even worse.

@@MadameRaven1 Exactly even worst, in here then we know, that the system works the same way, just more sophisticated.

It’s worse in 2022

It was happening way back then and we just let it get worse and worse over the years. Thanks capitalism!

@@LordBrittish Capitalism is the best economical system no matter what

“Corporations United” The SCOTUS should be locked up for this.

Amen brother

Yes it has. It's alot worse today. COVID19 is just the first Act.

Sadly, it's because corporations don't want it to change!

Faaacts

As a bassist thank you

ONGGGGG 😭

I know, I watched this when it 1st came out. What's new here I bet 80% of Americans don't even know what citizens united is. Catchy name, it should BE COMPANIES UNITED 👍🏻🇺🇲

You vote on basis of what the guy on Tv says to you?

@@hermanhoppe3773 Does that include the “LiBeRaLs GeTtiNg OwNeD using LOGIC” crowd of people like Ben Shapiro? Because in terms of entertainment, it’s up there. Ideologically and politically speaking? Not so much. Who needs books anymore when we can watch Tucker Carlson tout conspiracy theories about how minorities are taking the white man’s job? Good on you for promoting a healthy democratic republic you scat you!

Literally 99.9% of everything is a lie!

Yes it has. It's sod sad where our country is headed.

This is fucking moronic. It unreal how much people don't understand about corporations. This video is horrendously biased.

@@NextLevelAfrican this video makes it seem like pursuing a profit is a bad thing

@@NextLevelAfrican what do you mean? What do they not understand about corps?

@@jamesp6690 I don’t think you finished the video. I made a comment above would be cool if you gave it a read.

You might go back to the HUDSON BAY VO?

The federalist papers even say its a republic and that democracy wont work to fix factions. Read federalist 10.

Edward Nigma it’s simply said to kill a discussion. Yes we are a republic but we choose our elected officials through democratic means.

Wrong again! The People need to rise up! Wake up! Look at the world and what the dirty Republicans are doing! What you personally think is irrelevant. Wake up. Work FOR The People, not against them! Sheesh!

@@lancethrustworthy Seriously? "What you personally think is irrelevant"? That isn't something Edward personally thinks, so your comment doesn't make sense. It isn't an opinion, it's a fact. We ARE a constitutional republic-a country where some decisions (but not all) are made by direct democratic processes.

They are

Daniel Salerno, yes, there is far too much money in politics. But you can’t solve the problem unless you first diagnose the cause. There is too much money in politics because we have given Government WAY too much power to run our lives. When the Government has the power to run virtually every aspect of our lives, the power to kill a business or make a business incredibly profitable, business people HAVE to spend money lobbying just as a matter of self-preservation. You want to reduce the influence of money in politics? There is ONLY ONE WAY. Reduce the power of Government.

The unfortunate thing is that alot of the time they put a time limit on bills. So while eventually it could get all the states it needs. If the time limit had expired all of them need to say yes again and the governing bodies have changed.

hey boo. its been 7 years. we aint make much progress

You can' buy the next President, ask Bloomberg, he failed miserably. This is a pathetic interpretation of the case You can't regulate people's speech. A book is speech, a movie is speech, doesn't matter how much money poured into the movie and what purpose. Corporation is a group of people, who runs the corporations? Ghostbusters? We don't care if you have your donors, the point is that we will not be silenced. The people crying about Citizens United are the ones who are afraid of the truth. Democrats donors outweigh Republicans donors like 4 to 1. But the Democrats are afraid because they know that the Republicans side with the truth, and enough money to get the truth out shall sink any number of money promoting the lies. Cry me a river, kid.

@@markarmage3776 the truth? What is the "truth"... I mean I am simply asking for a clarification, so vague talking about a so called truth and not explaining it... As far as my opinion goes, the lack of accountability from the side of a corporation is troubling. A corporation is not a democracy, it is a monolithic structure where if you somehow disagree with its aims you'd be let go... If these structures take control of a country that would result in a totalitarianism of some sort... So claiming corporations have a right to free speech is absurd, don't you agree... Just enlighten me, what are you trying to say in the first place?

@@markarmage3776 oh and I am not into bipartisan politics, I think either group has historically been documented to be quite devious from time to time... But still I would be the first to admit I am leaning towards republican side... But as I said in the long run I don't care...

@@markarmage3776 Notice how Mark automatically resorts to praising one of the two main parties over the other, even though this video is not pointing out any parties. This is exactly why lobbying still exists

If you like this video, check out Common Cause, Represent Us and Robert Reich (of common cause)..He explains things brilliantly. PASS THEM ON!

Oligarch*

CEO's will fire workers to make even more money.

And yet they still want us to believe we're a "democracy"

Not a for-profit one at least..

HumanRights4Everyone no one is saying that a corporation in and of itself is a bad thing. Well, self styled communists or anarchists will, but most liberals are fine with corporations. So long as corporations pay their fair share, don't hide money offshore and tax evade, don't impose and lobby for government rules/regulations in their pure favor (eg monopolizing), and don't buy elections.

Booster Gold The video did seem a bit anti-corporation. The corporations are not the problem here IMHO; most of the people in most corporations are good people, contribute positively to the economy and country, offer jobs and benefits to workers, and aren't even involved in this crap. I'm torn on this issue...I believe in absolute freedom of speech...I just never thought of money as speech...but I guess you can interpret it that way. This seems so wrong though; private money has no place in public democracy.

If corporations are people, why hasn't Texas executed a few?

An excellent point!

uhhh are you getting paid fairly? then no, that’s not slavery...

@@alicelu5691 You missed the joke.

And why aren't they taxed at the same rate as me??? They want all the benefits of individuals and NONE of the consequences!!!😠😠😠

I’m 74. Exactly what would you suggest I do?

Because KZfaq/Google is a "person."

Do you think bribery is constitutional and shouldn't be illegal?

Campaign-finance result say otherwise

I'm so glad that worked out for you

***** I suppose that when the world goes to shit, sarcasm is the only defense.

The world is fine. It's nothing we can't get through

***** "Fine" by what standard?

***** I feel the same as I did before, it's just more frustratingly bleak now. "lol"

+Daniel Green Because the "Bern" is for censorship. You should read the actual court decision and realize that by silencing the smaller voices (ie. voices outside the BIG 6 MEDIA CORPORATIONS you'd only have THEIR CORPORATE interests in our politics... like, say, a constitutional amendment that limits our free speech. This video is blatantly misleading.

+WeAreTheShow She repeatedly claims we are a democracy. That is incorrect and a has become widely accepted by most.

Because socialism is a zombie idea

No, I think she was mainly here to sway people like me, whom are against this kind of thing. She succeeded, though. :D I think it's good. The last thing any particular cause needs is circlejerking, indoctrination is the key but it seems a lot of movements and groups like to sharpen their indoctrination skills on each other, not opposing agents.

No, and that's why this video is propagandist shit.

No. Because if you had any knowledge of law, in the high courts, the actual decision itself has no precedent. Its just an individual case remedied by the decision. The legal precedents handed down in the course of the justices making their decision, is what is important. If I sue you for wasting my time and for some reason the court hears the case and rules in my favor and provides me some remedy - then you appeal, and the appeal goes to the circuit courts. If the court in the case of You vs Me (2019), revokes the decisions of the lower courts - but does so by rationalising that people in the US cannot make stupid comments, then that becomes law. This is precedential lawmaking. Reasoning not supposed to be regarded as precedent, are referred by justices as 'obiter dicta' and are dually noted.

Let me summarise: If Joe sues Jack for stealing his lawnmower, and the case goes to the Supreme Court, the court might rule one way or the other. It's not important. What IS important is the legal reasoning the judges use in coming to their decisions. These are precedential - meaning they are law, and can be cited as law. The process is an artifact of the common law system, and is sometimes called "judge-made" law, as opposed to law made by the legislature.

One more time. The DECISION in Citizens United is immaterial. But the majority ruling, the five jurists who wrote that ruling, set new laws and changed old ones. A Supreme Court decision, like most appeals court decisions, aren't as important as the legal reasoning, and hence the precedential law - now enshrined as Constitutional by the weight of the court - used in coming to that decision, is what is relevant.

Price would probably go down.

it's a republic, so........fail

Money IS Free Speech BUT -- Money IS NOT “Free AND Equal” POLITICAL Speech!! -- BECAUSE at early Campaign “Stump Speeches” Abe Lincoln & the others were placed “Equally” enough apart to where Voters could move around & Freely Hear All Views Equally!! -- So EVIL “Citizens United” Must be KILLED with “Freedom AND Equality” in Political Speech as the “Supreme” Legal Argument & ALL Campaign Spending Must be “Equalized” so WE can Freely Hear All Mass Media Campaign "Stump Speech" Equally!!

America is no longer a Country ...since 1871. IS A CORPORATION ..THATS WHY..DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Agreed.

That's why Represent.Us aims to effect each the same way.

Unions are not profit motivated. Unions work at behest of the people they represent, the working class

@@fromthebackseat4865 no. Unions work for the self interest of workers. Companies work for the self interest of shareholders

@@rajashashankgutta4334 yes but the self-interest of the workers is fair wage and safe and humane working conditions. The interests of share holders is maximize profits at all cost. Even if that means unfair wages and unsafe working conditions. One is obviously better.

Uh huh. That's funny, because she didn't mention the specifics of the case whatsoever; she merely rambled on with anti-corporate sanctimony.

No, you don’t. Because Annie Leonard doesn’t know what the case is about. Or maybe she just doesn’t give a damn about lying to you. NOWHERE in this video does she explain the factual background of the case, the legal framework in which the case was decided, or the rationale of the decision. This entire video was designed to put forth an anti-corporation screed that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Apparently, any idiot who is clueless about history, law and economics can put out a video purporting to “educate” people.

@@DJDiverDan436 Agreed. As an attorney, I can say that this is pure rhetoric and in no way discusses the factual framework of Citizens United. It forwarded the popular misconception that CU allows for corporate funding of elections as opposed to the first amendment applying to corporate entities. Every time she referred to "our democracy," I lost more of what little respect I had for her...

@@DJDiverDan436 , she does get the negative consequences of Citizens United correct, and that is the bottom line. Keep it simple, baby.

Michael, she does get the negative consequences of Citizens United correct, and that is the bottom line.

BETTERWORLD SGT0589 Good for you and keep spreading the word for him! He needs all the help he can get.

+no hassle I'm for the overthrow of this case, but Sanders? Why do you think the gov can fix the problems given their track record? Please help understand I've ask this questions over 20 times, but nobody has given me a real reason.

skidmoda He is shedding light on the corruption that none of the other candidates want to talk about. He has admitted that not Bernie Sanders or anyone can do it alone, but by pulling together we can all make a difference.

no hassle you don't think any other candidate has mentioned this? I agree the message is good and yes they need to do it together. That hasn't answer my question, but you still make an interesting point.

skidmoda Mostly all of the other candidates have taken serious contributions from super pac donations which will no doubt influence their political goals. Bernie is funded by the American people. Plus he is a man who has strong principles that he has stood by his entire life. There are not many noble people like him in politics especially running for office, so voters should take that into account at the ballot box.

Nice reply. And an amazing usage of the word propaganda which doesn't imply something dirty. :) www.wolf-pac.com

Jonathan Josh Thanks, guy.

You want a bet?

Please, you can buy anyone desperate enough for some glimmer of hope, even if it's an illusion.

the corporations own and control the majority of sources of information other than word of mouth. And if we let them they will control forums like this and twitter and every other means of mass communication.

Alan Parkman I mean this honestly, can you cite your sources? I would like to use this info you just said (if it's true) elsewhere.

Ashley Casey Okay, lets make some lists. Name the radio stations, television stations in a minor or major market, television and cable networks, name the magazines or newspapers or cable or internet providers or any other media companies, cell phone and landline service providers, electronic or printed communications of any kind, etc that that are not controlled by a large or giant corporations or individual billionaires and document how many people get their information from them. Then make a list of those that are controlled by them and how many people get their information from those sources. Then make a list of all the politicians that do and those that do not accept corporate or wealthy interests' contributions. Make a list of legislation or proposed legislation that attempts to censor or tax or regulate the internet or twitter or cell phone communications and who sponsored and or voted for that legislation. Make a list of where you and I and anyone for that matter gets their information. Then document all those lists and cite the sources and who controls those sources and how you found those sources. Remember, information is not equal to truth. (I'm afraid I just created a full time unpaid job for us for several weeks or months. Maybe we could publish the results of our study.) Who are the publishers and who owns them, make a list and document it, cite the sources. Include that too. So, lets consolidate my thoughts. The research question for our study is this: Do the corporations own and control the majority of sources of information and every other means of mass communications other than word of mouth? I made my original statement based on my conclusions from deductive reasoning derived from my own observations and what I have read and heard over the years. So, I don't have sources I can cite off the top of my head. But, I think I have outlined a place to start if you are sincere in your search for the truth. Maybe there is a group of us that can take up that challenge or find some one who already has. I for one would need funding as I am not independently wealthy. (who funds research?)

+godonlyknows13 too much "free" stuff, he needs econ 101 1st. Gov doesn't have money of its own it has your money. I don't understand this faith in the government to fix things, given their track record. Why do you believe they can "fix" things?

skidmoda The government can't. The people can. This is what Bernie Sanders (as well as anyone who knows what they're talking about) tells us. It'll take everyone to cause the real systemic change needed to restore democracy to the united states. But Bernie Sanders is a man who is willing to be the leader of the people (not of big businesses) and help the citizens of these united states claim their country back from those who have stolen it.

godonlyknows13 Yes the people can meaning individuals with freedoms. Meaning Government get the hell out of my way. Bigger the government the smaller the individual. We don't live in a democracy it's a republic, but I see your intent. Bernie I have no doubt echoes a lot of frustrations of the majority of people. However, if you could vote yourself a new car would you? Yes it is of a self interest, but the problem that has unintended consequences from the lack of knowledge of how economics works. It really isn't difficult to understand, but politicians think about votes appealing to the masses.

skidmoda The United States is the richest country in the world, roughly double the economy of China, the U.S. is perhaps the richest country in history... The government can afford this shit without even blinking. It's all in how you distribute the wealth. Nothing is free, it all has to be paid for. But by making sure everyone pays what is fair, we can afford everything Sanders wants to bring to people. And just me talking - this has nothing to do with Bernie, per se - if you cut just a small percentage of the military budget, you free up A LOT of revenue that can be redirected toward much more necessary areas.

godonlyknows13 We can just afford it? WHY should they pay for it? Why should the government provide this? Ask yourself is it their role to do this? Why not a non-profit? Why not other non-public organizations? Why not a charity? Why specifically the government? If i want to give money to an organization it's my right and freedom to do so. However as soon as I am "forced" via taxes it lose my choice my freedom to do so. As I said the bigger the government the small the person..and freedoms.

There is no neutral way having corporations influence politics this heavily in the US is completely negative. Unless you like corporatocracy

It’s not a corporation so…?

HackersSun On this train the first and business class seating is empty. The party is back in the coach section! CHOO CHOOO!

+SwitchingRooskies Everyone knows all the cool kids sit at the back

I am from the future. Sad news, Bernie lost to Hillary

No, its both. Democracy is the philosophical ideology put in place by a structured Republic. Democracies say the people shall vote and a republic creates a system that allows this to happen sustainably

oh it's been a while since I havent seen one of those on my screen.

Nope, the United States is a fascist oligarchy.

John Doe Well since Obama was in charge, it sure seems that way.

Will Napolitano so because Obama is no longer president it's no longer a fascist oligarchy ridiculous. You have companies actually bribing the lawyers of the president and his constituents please try to understand other people's world view unbiased and make your opinion off that not whatever you hear on the news

Ty Martinee Actually, I never even said I support the current president. I do agree with him on certain issues though. I made a mistake. It should have been seems, rather than seems, which I changed. The ACA is Facsist, which is what I was implying. Just because I said I don't like Obama, doesn't mean I like Trump. I happen to be a Libertarian Conservative. Also, I don't even watch cable news or read NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

My fault for assuming your political stance usually when I see anti-Obama comments it's some radical Fox news Alt Right person. I wouldn't say ACA is fascist but Socialist this administration however is far more fascist than Obama's by any definition of the term. Obama didn't receive payments from companys and other countries actually bribing him to make certain policy decisions while Trump has.

+Indigo pirate What bias...Say WHAT the bias is. Name it. Are we supposed to guess what you mean?

Indigo pirate agreed

@@DavidJGillCA Anti-corporate bias.

Okay, anti-corporate bias. Now can you make a counter argument, as in, tell us WHY they deserve to be able to donate unending money, when it is glaringly obvious that they will put profit over the well being of our country?

They described why corporate money is a bad thing with examples and visual representations. Albeit, elementary ones for the layman. But you can't just say, "this only represents one side!" when you haven't even told us what your POV is, and why that contradicts theirs. It's like you're just saying "i don't like this song" when it's on the billboard top 100, but you wont tell us what's bad about it.

It is in their best interest to. In modern economics, the assumption is always that a corporation's main goal is to maximize profits. Shareholders as a collective only want their company to make money and will remove company owners who work against this.

Same.

Kevin Volk anti-corporate? arent we all?

Exactly how I felt. I don't even disagree with their sentiment but the title is heavily misleading

Kevin Volk Go read the decision. it's isn't good for US citizens.

same

+Anissa Crispin Margaret Thatcher once said that "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

***** You mean an oligarchy, you dumbshit! Learn politics before you speak!

Lyle Coulter U mad?

+irwin tomahawk To call a nation a democracy is shorthand for democratic republic or representative deomocracy. Democracy exists nowhere, yet we refer to "the Western democracies" all the time.

another corporate coffer? do you still believe that corporations are people, and money is free speech after viewing this video? hell, even a 3rd grader could grasp the point and get it

Sweetie pie! A Republic is a democracy ― by definition! The dictionary is your friend… : )

Is it not a democratic republic?

It is a Republic hints "to the REPUBLIC for which it stands"

But the inalienable rights for these corporations that you're claiming are held in the Constitution are subverting the rights of the people, for which it was meant to serve. Plus, why would you favor economic prosperity of large corporations over things like environmental sustainability? Chasing money ain't no life.

Carolyn Lois yeah... you just described a Republic. If you believe your own statement than you are opposing the views of a democracy.

Carolyn Lois you sound like a college student to say such a thing..