The Story of Citizens United v. FEC
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- The Story of Citizens United v. FEC: "Why Democracy Only Works When People Are in Charge" explores the history of the American corporation and corporate political spending, the appropriate roles of citizens and for-profit corporations in a democracy and the toxic impact the Citizens United decision is already having on our political process. It ends with a call to amend the U.S. constitution to confirm that people-not corporations-make the decisions in a democracy.
Free Range
A Brand and Innovation Studio on a Mission.
Advertising that empowers. Experiences that engage millions. Innovative design that changes lives.
www.freerange.com
Wow. This was elephant heavy!
Awesome.
This is not a challenge to the First Amendment. Corporations have always been permitted to advertise their products. That is free speech. But to suggest that corporations are people and entitled to the same protections as citizens sets a dangerous precedent. Lobying to get laws passed that favor their business climate is one thing; buying votes is something else. I will believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one and they bring criminal charges against Nike for using child labor
Excellent video!
Politicalgates has an exceptional 3 part series:
"How Corporate Personhood Came Into Being 3/3"
How did corporations come to be thought of as equal to human beings, in terms of civil rights? Where did this strange notion that “corporations are people too (my friends)” originate?
How did a court reporter's notation become legal precedent??
you guys do awesome work! can i request a "where food comes from" video? or a "how food is made and gets to our table?"
No
@@MrDanielfff777 I agree that individual, Erin, certainly may request all Erin wants to.
@Disney365Stitch 2008: In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 86 percent of Senate races won by top spenders. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats. In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races.
Excellent! Thanks!!!!!!! :-)
Shared on my FB and Tweeter.
Exceptional video! Already subscribed.
It is also worth noting that in the specific case of Citizens United, (not that it should matter) the corporation was not a shoe company but a company started specifically to produce a movie.
Speaking of buying votes, what do you think congressmen are doing when they spend tax money taken against our will to buy themselves power? And who is going to speak against them? The government-funded media (CPB etc.)? NBC? CBS? NRA? GreenPeace? Oh yeah, all of those are corporations.
Yes it is a challenge to the first amendment. What you are saying is that as soon as I join together with other citizens (remember freedom of association) I somehow lose my right to free speech. What part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't you understand? Political speech is the very core of what the first amendment is supposed to protect. If you make it illegal for citizens to work together to speak that is the end of effective free speech in America.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic, learn the difference.
@Disney365Stitch Well that sure is so. But even 2008, 2006 and 2004 companies could give some money and the amounts are rather small for corporations. Further more the point is money can influence voters. The more money you have the more you can spent on your campaign ans thus extend the reach of your campaign to get to more voters. Furthermore this is very important because in the us you vote for candidates. But even when a candidate loses corporations likely spent already money on the other.
Disney365Stitch still lives in fairy tail land.
Great video, shared it with my friends on Facebook. I hope people wake up one day.
message is on point, similar observation in Bill Moyers journal with a visionary economist who saw similar threats on a global scale not just US Gov't. Our republic did not grant the current preferential status to Corporate "beings" (who can only be terminated by their creators) (or bankruptcy??)
@Disney365Stitch haha, good one.
No, no, no. Not the first amendment. The fourteenth amendment. The corporation should not have any rights period.
In the original SCOTUS case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific they ruled against the Corporations. Yes. They lost. It was the court reporter and former Railroad CEO that rewrote the brief and No One said anything!
They don't have any rights period!
I wish we have one film like this to explain brazilian elections... Is the same f*cking process...
please realize that if you have a drivers license you are therefore under the 'corporations' statutes. Your birth certificate is your bond enslaving you in their world. Some things are true whether you like it or not.
@slintirregI get your point and it would be nice if it works that way sadly I think it does not. I think the money spent on one side forces the other side also to get close to the corporations to stay in the "arms race".
4:31 furthest flag to the right
This lady has no idea what shes talking about. Too much BS in this video to go through it all and shine the truth in...
i stopped watching when she said "we are a democracy" ...... NO we are a REPUBLIC.... say it with me REPUBLIC....
democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what they want to eat for dinner...
majority rules and the wolves get to eat...
Vote BLUE.
this needs more views