Has This Primary Changed Your Opinion on the Citizens United Ruling?
- Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:56pm by
Christopher Santarelli
- Print »
- Email »
The 2012 primary for the Republican presidential nomination has seen million dollar negative ad campaigns flood the airwaves to cripple major candidates and powerful super-PACS continue to grow thanks to unlimited and anonymous contributions. These developments has led some in taking a second look at the legality of new forces unleashed and in play during this Republican primary and soon general election, that have put America on pace for its most costly election ever.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has been the most talked about Supreme Court decision in recent memory. A landmark decision in regards to campaign finance law, the court ruled 5-4 that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, the decision ruled that such groups may seek to persuade the public through other means, including ads. The current status of campaign finance law came to fruition when the Citizens United decision led to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals March 2010 decision on Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that the government may not limit donations to groups established to make independent political expenditures.
Immediately following and since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, critics and supporters of the decision have been found within all political parties, and several of the most influential voices in American government have been extremely vocal in their opinions. Notably, cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito provoke the ire of President Barack Obama on the floor of congress during the State of the Union when Alito appeared to mouth the words “not true” after the president criticized the court’s decision.
Supporters of the decision say that it upheld the First Amendment rights of individuals acting through corporations and labor unions to participate in the political process, striking down regulations restricting political speech. Critics argue that the decision has enabled our political system to be corrupted by the influence of corporate money in elections, and call for an amendment to the Constitution.
Two years later we are seeing the results of Citizens United for the first time during a presidential election.
From December 1 until the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 45 percent of all ads airing in Iowa were directed against Newt Gingrich, including $3.4 million from Mitt Romney’s super PAC Restoring our Future. Following a disappointing fourth place finish in Iowa and a $5 million contribution from one man, a visibly bitter Newt Gingrich returned the favor, stumping on rhetoric portrayed in ads financed by his super PAC attacking Romney’s record as CEO of the private equity firm Bain Capital.
Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times sums up the hypocrisy and unintended consequences of the Citizens United-enabled battle royal between the two candidates and their super PACs following the release of a trailer for “The King of Bain:”
“Many things come to mind about this infomercial, but here are two of them. The first is that the Winning Our Future PAC is flush with $5 million from the Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a practitioner of predatory capitalism if ever there was one. (What’s more rapacious than a casino?) The second is that it’s a gift to the Democrats, who can use this line of attack in the coming months—and not just against Mr. Romney. They can use it to boost the concept of regulation, necessary to protect workers like the ones in the ad.
So here’s the Citizens-United fallout headline: Casino magnate attacks unethical capitalism to help a pal on the right, helps the left.”
The product of Citizens United, super PACs, spent $90 million in 2010. The Atlantic notes that the amounts super PACs will spend this year will be many multiples of that, as $32 million has already been raised.
After seeing the effect of the Gingrich v Romney super PAC war on the GOP primary thus far, and knowing that President Obama’s super PAC Priorities USA Action has already raised $3,161,535 in the 2012 cycle, what are your opinions on Citizens United?
Citizens United Two Years Later
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 693 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 498 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 352 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 332 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 318 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 318 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 332 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 243 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 318 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (113)
martinez012577
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:34pmIf people want to spend their money on ads they should be able to. As long as people that run them can be held responsible for their ads in court if they come out with just flat out lies.
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:48pmGreat point, I agree MARTINEZ012577.
Report Post »wbalzley
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:02pmCorporations (and Unions) are spending money that was earned by the efforts of their employees, and actually belongs to their SHAREHOLDERS…I am not sure that all these people agree with the company’s political views…
Report Post »thetreyman
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 12:39amthen dont invest in that company and if you already are, sell the stocks.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 1:39amA much better argument can be made against UNION political spending than against corporate political spending (at least in “closed shop” jurisdictions).
Report Post »foobear
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 2:20am“If people want to spend their money on ads they should be able to.”
Absolutely. Anyone that can vote in an election should be able to donate money however they want for it. It’s a simple principle, and a fair one.
However, this means:
1) No felons
2) No corporations (corporations can’t vote)
3) No money from overseas.
Allowing corporations to donate money to congress is simple bribery. They can lobby. They have free speech. Bribery is not free speech.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 3:31amWhat needs to end is the UNIONS stealing their members money and running ads. That is total BS!
Report Post »Abraham Young
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 9:33amI have a simple rule: LIBERTY. You can’t protect people who will not accept responsibility to think and protect themselves. Using government to “protect” people actually makes people less able to protect themselves.
Report Post »Rob in Katy
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 4:43pm@FOOBEAR,
Report Post »I like your thinking, so wouldn’t accepting SS, Welfare, Earned Income Credit, etc, all be bribes also? Want to stop the spending in DC, make it illegal for those that accept the money to vote.
Lucifers Hammer
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:32pmFor those who believe in limiting the budgets and free speech of organizations, bear one fact in mind. With an extremely limited budget, the only messages to be heard would be the ones the media carried about the candidates. It is a fact that 90% of all media people vote Democrat. Do you honestly believe they would represent the candidates fairly? The answer is no. There are several names for limiting the freedom of speech…fascism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, communism.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:48pmObamaism
Report Post »wbalzley
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:58pmSARCASM: The INTERNET will save us all from the left-leaning media…no, wait, they are about to fix that one too…
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 6:23amThat’s already happening now. We no longer have a constitutional republic…we have a guided democracy. We have had one caucus and one tiny state vote and everyone is declaring Romney the nominee. Look up guided democracy. The establishment republicans are in on it. My husband just tried to explain just that to the Bill Bennett show, and they wouldn’t let him on to say it. No one wants to hear it. We have the illusion of voting. And if we don’t vote for the right person, they’ll just rig it. So what are we going to do about it?
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:30pmThe one thing I think should be illegal is accepting campaign donations from foreign interests …we all heard of donations from George Soros and Arab country’s to Obama…
Report Post »wbalzley
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:17pmSARCASM: Why shouldn’t foreign corporations have a say in government? After all, Americans own stock in foreign companies, shouldn’t they be able to speak collectively? Don’t they have freedom of speech too?
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 12:41pmSure, we could pass a law prohibiting that, but so what if there’s a law? Remember Al Gore in 1996 or so. He broke the law, but because there was no court decision on it yet, Al Gore said “there is no controlling legal authority” about the law! Being a Democrat, he got away with it, of course.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:28pmThe most egregious campaign finance issue as I see it is the ability of this administration to give corporations and unions tax payer / bail out money which is laundered back to the DNC as campaign funds. There has to be a way to stipulate that a corporation receiving tax payer’s money be limited in the amount of campaign funding they can contribute in the same election cycle. If your company is hurting so much that it needs tax payer’s money, then how can it justify giving money to a political party. Put the other way, if it can afford the campaign contribution then it doesn’t need our tax dollars to survive. Kind of simplistic but you get my drift.
Report Post »The other financing issue I have is the ability of Unions to use mandatory dues for political activities. In fact the whole cycle of; Democrat lawmaker gives outrageous “Collective Bargaining” settlements to the unions, the union attract more members, union takes in more mandatory dues and gives it right back to Democrat lawmaker. They are bankrupting every state in the union with this scheme and the non-union worker is on the hook for the bill. When does it stop?
I am convinced that sooo much of the rest of the campaign finance whining is just a red herring including this Citizen United ruling.
Save our Freedoms
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:27pmIt is not the perfect system, but the only way to give those on the right a say. So sad that Republicans use it to attact one another instead of Obama.
Unions take forced dues from members and give it to Democrats to elect people who will do as they wish. Soros controlled groups give tons of money and it was supposedly legal in 2008.
This levels the playing field, but sad to see Republicans use it against one another, they are just helping to reelect Obama.
Report Post »Norma Perez
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:19pmCitizens United is the best thing that could have happened this election cycle. Don‘t let anyone tell you it’s not.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 2:21amCU allows corporate bribery.
Don’t fall for it.
We wouldn’t have SOPA/PIPA if they hadn’t bought off the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and a majority of votes on it. Fortunately Issa, Chaffetz and others are putting up a good fight for our liberties.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:17pmGet ready for January 20 when the Meatheads plan Occupy the Courts . This is the Obama Re-election Committee’s follow-up to that previous “ Smear the Supremes ” State of the Union Speech . Bingo. Thus, Obama has added the Supreme Court to his Hit List. He’s already targeted Congress in his Blame Congress campaign strategy . Now he’s adding the judicial branch to his target. Notice anything ? Three branches of government . Obama targets two of them. Obama controls the only other branch. Hmmmm. What could this mean, folks ? Balance of power ? Constitution ?
Report Post »KangarooJack
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:10pmUltimately, it is up to the VOTER to decide. How a Candidate funds his/her campaign isn’t relevant to me…except, it really is. WHO is Funding? Is one of my 1st questions. I gotta tell ‘ya though, during the Iowa caucuses, a co-worker asked me if a Republican or a Democrat won.
{SAD, to say, I am NOT kidding!}
We are sooo doomed! Maybe my co-worker will have to work that day…I hope. lol
Report Post »wbalzley
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:09pmSadly, most voters are strongly influenced by what they hear in the media. How many people do you talk to who simply rehearse what they heard someone say on TV? And research has shown that NEGATIVE ads are the most effective at affecting a person’s opinion…
Report Post »Bruce_Almty
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 12:36amIs your co-worker part of the EEO don’t need a high school diploma to qualify for a job hire???
Report Post »Zaggynuts
Posted on January 22, 2012 at 7:56pmwbalzley you are exactly correct, as I still have heard people parrot the “I can see Russia from my house” garbage. If the media is overwhelmingly supporting one candidate over another then it should be counted as campaign contributions.
Report Post »joejoegolfn
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:02pmIt is the responsibility of every american citizen to study the candidates and issues to make an informed decision. There are outright lies, half truths and inuendos in every pac add i have ever seen. I read about and try to understand each candidate as well as history and pick the person as close to my beliefs as possible but also will move the country in the right direction. I thought for example that Newt Gingrich was a conservative until I started really studying him. He is a progressive republican in his own words and action. He follows Teddy Rosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Against everything I believe in. Sitting on the couch with Pulosi and Fredie mac was bad. But now the super pac ad against Romney with Bain capital is too much. I switched to Santorum. The only true conservative.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:08pmRight on. Agreed. People can spend money any way they like. That includes the people who work for corporations and *gag* labor unions.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:26pmThing is otherwise .. those who follow the rules are screwed .. and those who don’t are at an advantage .. Unions find a way legal or NOT … so just let everyone.
Report Post »wbalzley
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:13pm“The people who work for corporations” are not spending their OWN money, they are spending the money of their SHAREHOLDERS and in some cases TAXPAYER dollars from SUBSIDIES and BAILOUTS…
Report Post »lannylar
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:00pmLook at the money it is jut the start. Let them spend but open up any add to a libel suite make them prove it in court if they lie they pay.
Report Post »Maybe we can at least put caps on spending thru the States .. 1 make a limit how much a candidate can raise. 2 make them raise it only in their State from people in the State . 3 Anyone taking adds out with a candidates name must raise money in the state from the people. Anyone can run adds but they can not use the candidates name only a message about what they think. 5 Anyone taking out a negative add can be sued. 6 States should limit how much anyone from their State can receive while in Washington.
BonnieBlueFlag
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:57pmI think that these 527 PACs should be allowed to raise and spend whatever amount of money they wish, *however*, I believe they should not be tax exempt as they are now. They should be taxed at either the highest corporate tax rate or the highest personal income tax rate, whichever is greater. That would create the incentive for politicians to keep taxes low, and it would publish all the relavent financial information via the IRS like the rest of us.
Report Post »Roaran
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:00pmThey will just put in a loop hole that only the establishent candidate’s lawyers know how to exploit.
Report Post »RockstarRepublic
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:55pmI have nothing against negative ads, because it goes both ways for both parties. I dont care who is funding them either AS LONG AS the negative ads contain factual information, not lies.
Maybe this will cause people to be more inquisitive and not be so easily manipulated by any type of propaganda.
Personally I would rather have a form of campaign finance that keeps all parties with the same amount of money, making the message more important rather than the deep pockets and legal bribes from special interest.
The unions would hate it!
Report Post »BonnieBlueFlag
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:03pmYes, but who determines what is truth and what is lies? Libs generally appoint themselves to this position but I generally disagree with their findings. Libs claim it is the truth that Obama has created jobs. Is this truth or lies? Libs claim it is proven that humans are causing global warming. Is this truth or lies? Let us not start trying to legislatively define the truth outside of legal cases. If a party has enough proof that someone has actually lied about them publicly, they can file a defamation suit.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:42pmAs a one time member of a union (forced to join or lose my job) I had no say in what the union did with my union dues. Instead of my dues helping to secure better pay and benefits as they should, they were spent 2 ways 1. Union fat cat pockets, and 2 to elect progressive candidates into office all the while the government lackeys saying how much he or she was standing up for the little. As far as Corps go, I can freely not buy their products or services if they support candidates I don’t like.
Report Post »Verity58
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:40pmWhat would you do if you found out your government was responcible for 9/11? Would it make a difference? If 9/11 was an inside job, what does that make the war on terror? The work of Dimitri Khalezov should not be ignored, please take the time to look into it.You owe it to yourself and your country.
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:46pmtell your friend jesse ventura to take you to mexico
Report Post »booger71
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:56pmWhat if I told you that the Rothschilds and Build a Bobs were really Aliens from the planet Mondor
Report Post »Jinglebob
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:59pm9-11 an inside job? I can’t believe anyone with half a brain still believes this stuff. Do you have any idea how many people it would take to carry off somthing this large? Hundreds. Don’t you know no one in government can keep a secret for long. How many death bed confessions, paid interviews, book deals would follow such an operation. get real folks.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:07pmRon Paul supporter alert.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:12pmThe Supreme Court ruled correctly on Citizens United vs. FEC.
Speach may not be prohibited no matter what the source is.
Here is a great video which covers this issue, and responds to those who saw the decision as somehow silencing the voice of others simply because people may have easier and more frequent access to information spread by interested wealthy parties.
See here.
Story of Citizens United v. FEC, The Critique
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJEeKez1Jlw
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:28pmNope.
Report Post »floradaze
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:23pmIf you base your opinion of a candidate for the highest office in this country on a TV ad you deserve what you get. Elections have consequences.
Report Post »Personally the more said the better.
Does it really matter if the ads are paid for by Unions or corporations or a bunch of grannys pooling their life savings to save their country?
After all what exactly did (do) we know about thew present occupant of the White House?
You know, the one who likes to put his feet up on the Resolute Desk?
All this talk about how un-civil this election is, have they never read anything about Lincoln’s election?
Good grief we got a civil war out of that one!
Abraham Young
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 9:36amLet them waste their money. If anything, we should protect ourselves from the Hollywood propaganda, there’s lots more money being spent there to influence people than have ever been spent in politics. Every show seems to have progressive philosophy as a subtext to the plot.
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:22pmI’ve long held the following position on campaign finance;
Report Post »A. One person/ one $50 max donation to one candidate per election cycle, per level of office sought.
B. No corporate or special intrest grouping donations at all to any candidate.
C. No advertising outside of candidates “official” designation allowed.
D. Candidates war chests set a locked specific amount $200,000 Local, $500,000 State, $1,000,000 Federal, and $2.5 million Presidential: for entire campaign, non refillable.
I believe this would go a long way at removing the conflict of interest a Goldman Sacs, or an SEIU could make unduely during and after elections. It would also force candidates to meet and greet, and to play on a level field.
oldoldtimer
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:31pmExactly. Why should any group be allowed to buy an election?
Report Post »BonnieBlueFlag
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:26pmActually, if you limit their fundraising abilities, it will simply come down to the personal wealth of the politician. Whoever has the most personal wealth will win every time. That is not very democratic, in fact it’s kind of feudal.
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:00pmbonnieBlue
Report Post »I also failed to indicate that those non refillable war chests would be the maximum allowed to be spent by a candidate in a campaign. So no, you couldn’t out spend your opponent, it would be absolutely equal.
If corporations can’t vote en Masse, why can they buy votes en Masse ?
George Washington warned us,” there shall come those after us, who after having achieved great wealth using our system, shall endeavor to slam the door of prosperity behind them.”
We see this happening, in our election cycles, this is the cause of the Tea Party wether or not we recognize the source of the financial mess we are in. Are all capitalists bad, most assuredly NOT ! But a few bad eggs have slipped in, gained great wealth, and even great influence, companies like GE, Goldman Sacs, and their ilk. Go to http://www.CFR.org, read the global governance pages, search out the corporations, individuals that are members, it is the home to those whom Washington spoke towards. Obamas, Soros, Chaney, Bush, Clintons, Gingrich, Huntsman were or are members. I’ve been tracking these folks since 2001.
So yes I’m vehemently against allowing any group collective the chance to purchase my countries government, including my own group.
trappedinwv
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 6:25amNope, not at all. If a candidate can‘t survive these attacks then they won’t survive the Dems attacks later on. How many times did Obama just ignore facts about his past by saying “we have been through this in the primaries” or something to the effect.
Report Post »Norm D. Plume
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:22pmAll this primary cycle has done is to further convince me that corporate personhood is EVIL.
Corporations and unions should NOT have the ability to try to influence elections. They are NOT people, and therefore do not enjoy the same rights as entities which breathe and have blood coursing through their veins.
Report Post »PINCHER
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:47pmSo, if I and 10 of my co-workers at my small business, PINCHER, INC. each give $25 to the Republican party in the name of PINCHER, INC, that’s bad?
Report Post »BonnieBlueFlag
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:30pm“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACABLY ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
‘Corporate personhood’ as you call it is nothing more than the RIGHT of free assembly (association.)
Why do you hate our Constitution so much?
Report Post »wbalzley
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 12:36amNO, “Corporate Personhood” has nothing to do with freedom of assembly. This PDF provides a quick summary of “Corporate Personhood” and how it came to be http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf
Report Post »Norm D. Plume
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 7:37amThen each of you give $25. That is your right, as flesh-and-blood people.
Allowing a corporation, which does not breathe and is not made of flesh and blood, to exercise free speech rights as if it were a human being, is a sick and twisted aberration.
Report Post »BonnieBlueFlag
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 9:04pmWow, Nord, you really make a good point. Since I live in a conservative state, if Citizens United is reversed, we will simply pass laws outlawing speech by non-human entities which we don’t like. This will include: MoveOn(dot)org, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, PETA, WWF, GLSEN, PFLAG, MTV, NAACP, LaRaza, LULAC and many more.
Great idea, I can’t wait!!! :)
Report Post »verilite
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:22pmSo where is my first comment? It didn’t violate your policy. Do we have a communist moderator?
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:20pmNumber one, Alito is one of my heroes, he actually told the President he was a liar.. in a round about way.. anyone that stands up to Obama is a hero.. The Unions are as corrupt as they were back when Jimmy Hoffa senior disappeared.. they no longer are for the union workers, they are for their union dues and they spend it towards what they want, like Obama.. geting him elected.. I hope we remove Obama from the WH and our new president abolishes the unions, they are evil and do nothing for the workers.. No help on healthcare, no help on retirement.. and the people.. just don’t get it.. God help us all!
Report Post »verilite
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:17pmCheck out the voter fraud in NH
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/fraud-in-new-hampshire-primary
Report Post »OneRepublic4us
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:05pmI don’t watch TV. I can’t afford cable. Sounds like a huge waste of money to me.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:03pmNo – Unions have had free reign to corrupt our elections for 70 years.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:33pmAnd the Obama Democrats are working hard to keep it that way !
Report Post »PINCHER
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:02pmAlito was right, Obama was wrong. Corporations are made of people. We can all give collectively towards a goal.
I thought Progs LIKED collectives. But they’re complaining about this.
Report Post »Oh well. A Prog who isn’t whining and complaining is a dead Prog.
survivorseed
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:21pmSeems to me like it is the Blaze complaining about this because something that neo cons invented is coming back to bite them. If the Blaze is now considered progressive then republicans truly will get 1% of the vote come 2012.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:28pmIf corporations are not made up of “people,“ then neither are unions made up of ” people.” Period.
Report Post »wbalzley
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:26pmUm…NO…we are a nation of individuals NOT COLLECTIVES. One man, one voice, one VOTE. Neither Corporations or Unions should have a say in our elections. They are like mini givernments in their own right and should be restricted…
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:00pmso who is going to really take out the money and power from the elite ?
Report Post »Mitt or Newt ?
PINCHER
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:05pmNeither one. They’re part of the elite as well.
Report Post »So long as voters elect the person with the nicest hair, smoothest voice or cutest family, we won’t get the kind of leadership we so desperately need.
Tell me, where does character matter these days? Anywhere? Does anyone even know what it is?