I'm just wondering that when ppl speak of giving corporations more rights, they never talk about adding the accompanying responsibilities? If corporations are to be treated like real people, why are they not given the same responsibilities like prison terms (as in suspension of business activities) or death penalties (dissolution of the companies)?
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.
What I got from this: Corporations/Unions using their own money to advocate their own political choices: Debatable. Corporations/Unions using their own money to lobby: Not a good idea.
There's a debate whether corporations benefit from donations? No, there is no debate. There are the people stating facts that they obviously do and have, and those who represent corporations just childishly denying it. That's not a debate. If I pick up a basketball and say "This is a basketball," and someone says "No, that's a fire truck," that's not called a debate.
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.
@@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.
IT'S PUBLIC FUNDS THAT ARE USED TO DEVELOP LIFE SAVING DRUGS. pharmaceutical companies get to overcharge YOU and make record profits OFF YOUR INVESTMENT. the public healthcare system doesn't get to negotiate prices. politicians accept money from pharmaceutical super pacs and lobbyists and do their bidding instead of voters. voters are fighting for lower drug prices but politicians are not beholden to the everyday voters, politicians fight against voters on behalf of the pharmaceutical company to keep the price of life saving drugs high.
"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
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 still want big money out of politics. Im sure theres a correlation between climate change denting politicians and being backed by fossil fuel industries.
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?
How would you answer this question.. The opposing opinion stated that the press/media is different than corporations. How is the press different from corporations? Does that difference matter when it comes to free speech?
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.
$1000 donation cap per individual per candidate per election. Self-funding cap of $1 million No money from anywhere else. Prison sentences for anyone caught trying to game the system. It's too important to mess around.
Corporations to not pay taxes. They are pass-through entities. They pass their tax burden onto the next layer in the supply chain that ALWAYS ends with a real person, who reimburse the corporations for their taxes. Corporations cannot fight in wars. No piece of paper with writing on it can. Corporations can be punished with fines for a crime, but those fines are generally a tiny, TINY fraction of the yearly income of said company. It goes on and on and on and on.. Corporations are not persons. Furthermore, if you were to actually read the decisions regarding Citizens United, you will see the corruption. They had to ask the parties to re-argue two RECEMT previous cases that they wanted to overturn so that they could issue the case they chose. The Supreme Court is treasonous. THey are supposed to support and defend the constitution, not reinterpret it or change the laws.
The fact that the stock market isn’t limited to the citizens of the United States then any publicly traded company doesn’t qualify for the first amendment
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.
Corporations should not be allowed to spend on political advertising because they should have a fiduciary responsibility to return that money to shareholders. And if they do so they should be limited by the individual contribution limits. So if I'm a shareholder of AAPL stock and they spend a prorated $1 of contribution on my behalf it should count against my limit.
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?
@@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?
I feel like the Bluman case is extremely simple and that you can’t compare it with Citizens United. He. is. not. a. U.S. citizen. Obviously we do not want a foreigner influencing our politics. Become a citizen, it’s your politics too. Why can’t we have Russia influencing our election, huh? Similar logic, I don’t get it. It seems obvious enough
The first amendment protects speech, not just particular speakers. Citizens United allows the people to organize together and make independent expenditures like books or movies to convince other people. Without it, Americans would be divided and unable to stand together for funded political speech before elections, the most important times for that speech.
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.
@@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.
The constitution limits legal fiction entities, case in point the constitution exist to limit the legal fiction known as the U.S. government. It also exist to uphold the inalienable right of the natural persons. I guess my point is that a natural person is always supreme to legal fiction entities so to say a legal fiction entity has the same rights of a natural person is the abandonment of common sense.
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.
Honestly, I expected better, but thanks for this. I'll know now be wary of your product. Education should be well rounded, debate is necessary, but this avoided interpretation of how this ruling broke an existing precedent that was working fine. That there is a thing as a Bad ruling by SCOTUS, especially when it has the perception of a partisan ruling. Its happened before, just ask the Japanese. Also you probably should have taken better care with those ending remarks because falling back on the slippery slope line is dangerous to hear for the less informed folks how will watch this with half paid attention and only want the high points. The slippery slope argument is not valid if the slope was greased by this ruling, not before, but thanks for leaving us with the impression that its a bigger deal than it is in regards to this case. Corps have SOME rights as a 'person', but only in LEGAL BUSINESS arenas. Last time I checked you can't disolve a person. Well...you can, but that's murder. If a corp has the right to Speech as a true 'person', they should have a right to Vote as well. Lets follow that rabbit hole shall we? If this is what this video is saying, how many votes? The number of members on their board? The number of their shareholders? What about the fact that some of their shareholders are Foriegn? Protecting speech of shareholders who aren't US citizens, how progressive of you. Also the ban on publishing is TEMPORARY. They are free to publish whatever the heck they want as long as its not slander during Non-Campaign periods, which is MOST of the time. That was clear before this ruling. Rules CAN be nuanced, unless this is saying we Americans have brains too small to handle that. Exceptions for news media isn't surprising as they are supposed to be keep to Higher Standards of accountability and impartiality. Much like banks and lawyers and any other Profession that holds a perception of acting in a fiduciary role. I'm sure the 'news media' arm of the NRA could not pass the higher accountability standard. And if CNN or Fox News or any other 24hr news media can't meet that standard either, you should fix THAT. Not jack-up our elections laws by trying to shove their square peg into our election systems round hole. But like I said, I honestly thought you were a better organization than to put out stuff like this, better care should be taken on what ideals are left with the student, so much for being able to find a balance reading of the Citizen's United case. I thought you might be a good avenue, but not so much. PS. this squeaks heavily of why debates should be fact checked while they're happening. Especially, not so much when the fact is wrong, but when facts are opted to serve an argument. K thanks, bye!
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.
I'm just wondering that when ppl speak of giving corporations more rights, they never talk about adding the accompanying responsibilities? If corporations are to be treated like real people, why are they not given the same responsibilities like prison terms (as in suspension of business activities) or death penalties (dissolution of the companies)?
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
What I got from this: Corporations/Unions using their own money to advocate their own political choices: Debatable. Corporations/Unions using their own money to lobby: Not a good idea.
Oh please, the union lobby power is maybe a single-digit percentage of the power of corporations and industry.
There's a debate whether corporations benefit from donations? No, there is no debate. There are the people stating facts that they obviously do and have, and those who represent corporations just childishly denying it. That's not a debate.
If I pick up a basketball and say "This is a basketball," and someone says "No, that's a fire truck," that's not called a debate.
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.
IT'S PUBLIC FUNDS THAT ARE USED TO DEVELOP LIFE SAVING DRUGS. pharmaceutical companies get to overcharge YOU and make record profits OFF YOUR INVESTMENT. the public healthcare system doesn't get to negotiate prices. politicians accept money from pharmaceutical super pacs and lobbyists and do their bidding instead of voters. voters are fighting for lower drug prices but politicians are not beholden to the everyday voters, politicians fight against voters on behalf of the pharmaceutical company to keep the price of life saving drugs high.
"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
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.
@@criss3619 well that's not even solving the problem as a lot of donations are from very rich people too.
I still want big money out of politics. Im sure theres a correlation between climate change denting politicians and being backed by fossil fuel industries.
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?
Bring it to the light !
How would you answer this question..
The opposing opinion stated that the press/media is different than corporations. How is the press different from corporations? Does that difference matter when it comes to free speech?
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.
There should be no money in politics!!!
$1000 donation cap per individual per candidate per election. Self-funding cap of $1 million No money from anywhere else. Prison sentences for anyone caught trying to game the system. It's too important to mess around.
Corporations to not pay taxes. They are pass-through entities. They pass their tax burden onto the next layer in the supply chain that ALWAYS ends with a real person, who reimburse the corporations for their taxes. Corporations cannot fight in wars. No piece of paper with writing on it can. Corporations can be punished with fines for a crime, but those fines are generally a tiny, TINY fraction of the yearly income of said company. It goes on and on and on and on.. Corporations are not persons.
Furthermore, if you were to actually read the decisions regarding Citizens United, you will see the corruption. They had to ask the parties to re-argue two RECEMT previous cases that they wanted to overturn so that they could issue the case they chose.
The Supreme Court is treasonous. THey are supposed to support and defend the constitution, not reinterpret it or change the laws.
The fact that the stock market isn’t limited to the citizens of the United States then any publicly traded company doesn’t qualify for the first amendment
Generative A.I vs Content vs Context /TRUTH = Narratives (whether nonfictional or fictional) translates to ACTIONS
These decisions need to be revisited
what about private vs public corporations?
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.
Framing this in terms of free speech rights is the problem. The decision gave corporations more influence and power and that's the bottom line.
Corporations should not be allowed to spend on political advertising because they should have a fiduciary responsibility to return that money to shareholders. And if they do so they should be limited by the individual contribution limits. So if I'm a shareholder of AAPL stock and they spend a prorated $1 of contribution on my behalf it should count against my limit.
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
I believe you can engage in election related activities if you're a non citizen, but a US person. Am I wrong?
The richest people helps fund citizen united!
wow
So, if I hire a hitman to smoke my boss, am I off the hook for using "speech", since that's what money is equivalent to?
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?
I feel like the Bluman case is extremely simple and that you can’t compare it with Citizens United. He. is. not. a. U.S. citizen. Obviously we do not want a foreigner influencing our politics. Become a citizen, it’s your politics too. Why can’t we have Russia influencing our election, huh? Similar logic, I don’t get it. It seems obvious enough
The first amendment protects speech, not just particular speakers. Citizens United allows the people to organize together and make independent expenditures like books or movies to convince other people. Without it, Americans would be divided and unable to stand together for funded political speech before elections, the most important times for that speech.
people have 1st amendment protected rights, and groups of people don't lose those rights.
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?
Loopholes Loopholes Loopholes
The constitution limits legal fiction entities, case in point the constitution exist to limit the legal fiction known as the U.S. government. It also exist to uphold the inalienable right of the natural persons. I guess my point is that a natural person is always supreme to legal fiction entities so to say a legal fiction entity has the same rights of a natural person is the abandonment of common sense.
Inalienable rights aren't real
Everyone has a right to free speech, even if it's through a megaphone so loud it drowns out any other voice.
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.
"The press serves an educational and informative function".
ROTFLMAO!!
Laugh all you want, but don't forget about independent press like most people have ;p
Honestly, I expected better, but thanks for this. I'll know now be wary of your product. Education should be well rounded, debate is necessary, but this avoided interpretation of how this ruling broke an existing precedent that was working fine. That there is a thing as a Bad ruling by SCOTUS, especially when it has the perception of a partisan ruling. Its happened before, just ask the Japanese. Also you probably should have taken better care with those ending remarks because falling back on the slippery slope line is dangerous to hear for the less informed folks how will watch this with half paid attention and only want the high points. The slippery slope argument is not valid if the slope was greased by this ruling, not before, but thanks for leaving us with the impression that its a bigger deal than it is in regards to this case.
Corps have SOME rights as a 'person', but only in LEGAL BUSINESS arenas. Last time I checked you can't disolve a person. Well...you can, but that's murder. If a corp has the right to Speech as a true 'person', they should have a right to Vote as well. Lets follow that rabbit hole shall we? If this is what this video is saying, how many votes? The number of members on their board? The number of their shareholders? What about the fact that some of their shareholders are Foriegn? Protecting speech of shareholders who aren't US citizens, how progressive of you.
Also the ban on publishing is TEMPORARY. They are free to publish whatever the heck they want as long as its not slander during Non-Campaign periods, which is MOST of the time. That was clear before this ruling.
Rules CAN be nuanced, unless this is saying we Americans have brains too small to handle that. Exceptions for news media isn't surprising as they are supposed to be keep to Higher Standards of accountability and impartiality. Much like banks and lawyers and any other Profession that holds a perception of acting in a fiduciary role. I'm sure the 'news media' arm of the NRA could not pass the higher accountability standard. And if CNN or Fox News or any other 24hr news media can't meet that standard either, you should fix THAT. Not jack-up our elections laws by trying to shove their square peg into our election systems round hole.
But like I said, I honestly thought you were a better organization than to put out stuff like this, better care should be taken on what ideals are left with the student, so much for being able to find a balance reading of the Citizen's United case. I thought you might be a good avenue, but not so much.
PS. this squeaks heavily of why debates should be fact checked while they're happening. Especially, not so much when the fact is wrong, but when facts are opted to serve an argument. K thanks, bye!
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.
messy crowded video
Plz imrove...u explain in bit confusingway
Plz love this comment!
NeptuneJocTM
I do not....