Why You Can Buy The Next President | Citizens United v. FEC

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 20 янв 2025

Комментарии • 651

  • @iammrbeat
    @iammrbeat  Год назад +13

    My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
    Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
    Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
    Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
    Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
    Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
    Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
    Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
    Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e

  • @allyourcode
    @allyourcode 6 лет назад +209

    Companies generally incorporation in places like Delaware and Ireland, where they will get favorable tax treatment, regardless of where they actually operate. I would like to declare my residency the same way: in Washington, there is no income tax. In Oregon, there is no sales tax. So, since companies are on the same footing as me, I would like to do the same: pay Washington income taxes and Oregon sales taxes, even though I live in California. Wait, what? I can't just arbitrarily choose my residency for tax purposes? Guess corp's have more rights than people!

    • @AndrewDeFaria
      @AndrewDeFaria 4 года назад +22

      Corps have different rights than people. Corps pay different tax rates, for example. Corps don't go to the doctor but have various fees that you don't have (I know, I have a corp). This ruling says that corps are on the same footing as you WRT speech, not everything else.

    • @jwil4286
      @jwil4286 4 года назад +2

      If you move to Washington state and get a job in Oregon, you can do that

    • @jnayvann
      @jnayvann 2 года назад +5

      Hey you can even have a primary residence in Virginia and become a US Senator from Missouri. I'm looking at you, Josh Hawley.

    • @SphincterOfDoom
      @SphincterOfDoom Год назад +2

      It was never said corporations are the same as citizens.

    • @kpitts8921
      @kpitts8921 Год назад

      @@jwil4286 with the exception of large purchases like cars, the Oregon business is supposed to collect Washington sales tax. Speaking from experience.

  • @speedybill47
    @speedybill47 7 лет назад +154

    Mr. Beat, Love the way you really get in to describe these cases with just the right amount of comedy and seriousness. As a student in governance almost 5 years ago now, cases like this were always my favorite to debate and discuss in class, eve if the rest of the class wasn't as enthused as i was. When i next see them, you bet you're on my list to suggest to my teachers back home and I think next month i may budget some money for your patreon!

    • @ahouyearno
      @ahouyearno 7 лет назад +2

      The rest of the class not being enthused is probably because this is not really a topic to be discussed. There is no debate. Citizens United is bad for democracy, bad for politics and legalizes corruption. It puts all the power in the hands of a select few.
      There are issues where one side is clearly wrong and those kinds of topics don't tend to raise fun discussions. It's actually depressing to think how democracy has been undermined and destroyed and how little people can do about it.

    • @Cumrag69420
      @Cumrag69420 7 лет назад

      Damnit, oh well sceond is good with me

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +15

      Thank you so much for the kind words and for your consideration of support on Patreon. I agree with you- it's amazing to me how not all students get into these more when it greatly affects them. This case is a class example, and yes, also fun to debate, as I really can understand both sides.

    • @ahouyearno
      @ahouyearno 7 лет назад +6

      My last comment wasn't very helpful I realize now.
      If you want to engage young people on the Citizens United case, I believe the most useful angle is to talk about how to fix it. Is an amendment the best course? Is WolfPAC a good idea with the constitutional convention or should we rely on 75% of states coming together? Should we vote for candidates who'll appoint Justices who pledge to overturn Citizens United? Is it a good idea to deny corruption and go the Sanders route? Is it possible to win without taking PAC money?
      Those debates have merit. It can involve students on the finer points of the constitution and amendments when the class is already in agreement that Citizens United is bad (which is suggested by the lack of enthusiasm)

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +10

      I agree entirely, and have implemented similar activities in my classroom with other topics we have covered. I actually currently don't teach government or current events, but when I do I plan on incorporating some of the ideas you suggested.

  • @wreaverfizzlefen3234
    @wreaverfizzlefen3234 7 месяцев назад +18

    If money = speech, then more money = more speech, and that fundamentally breaks the system.

    • @piggy8761
      @piggy8761 5 месяцев назад +1

      Ah dont say that, youre hurting their narrative
      Thats what i immediately thought when i learned of citizens united v fec.
      More money = more speech? 😂😂 makes zero sense

  • @williamcfox
    @williamcfox 7 лет назад +240

    Thanks for the shoutout!
    This episode stressed me out because I get cognitive dissonance thinking about it.
    I'd hate to limit speech during the critical final days of an election, but I also hate unlimited dark money in our politics.
    Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order, but who honestly believes we can focus people on that or motivate legislators to push it through the states? My political cynicism knows no bounds these days....

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +52

      You bet! I go back and forth on this one as well. I do favor a Constitutional amendment, albeit one different than John Paul Stevens. I think that individual donations should be limited for campaigns. Obviously this contradicts the First Amendment, so the Constitution must be amended.

    • @flamefusion8963
      @flamefusion8963 7 лет назад +14

      How about no amendment. Let people support any candidate they want. Freedom of speech.

    • @jeviosoorishas181
      @jeviosoorishas181 7 лет назад +1

      Aren't the parties, private organizations?

    • @winmine0327
      @winmine0327 7 лет назад

      But you like dark votes? Why call it dark?

    • @Shardok42
      @Shardok42 6 лет назад +4

      Funky Euphemism It does require constituional amendments because of rulings like this one. Without such then the courts are likely to just follow precedent.

  • @SkYjUmPeR5015
    @SkYjUmPeR5015 7 лет назад +60

    this series is so amazing so far, waiting for the next episode!

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +9

      Thank you so much for watching :D

  • @Nognamogo
    @Nognamogo 6 лет назад +660

    Nothing has destroyed my faith in the Democratic process more than citizens United vs fec.

    • @smhollanshead
      @smhollanshead 5 лет назад +39

      Om Nom Nom nothing reinforces my faith in America than Citizens United. Are you aware the state in Citizens United wanted to ban movies, censor speech, and put people in jail for saying what they think. Perhaps you are in favor of banning movies, censoring speech, and jailing people who, in good faith, disagree with you, but I’m not in favor of such things. The scary part is four leftist Supreme Court justices would allow banning movies, censoring speech, and imprisoning people for expressing a political point of view. Such a view seems more like Nazi Germany than America.

    • @elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770
      @elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 5 лет назад +114

      Citizens United made America an oligarchy where big donors control all of politics.

    • @smhollanshead
      @smhollanshead 5 лет назад +2

      You of little faith. You have to trust that, when you speak the truth, people will listen. Try it yourself. With someone you know and respect, Whisper the truth to them. Then, with a megaphone, scream as loud as you can a lie. See which one your friend believes. Do you truly think just because someone talks with a megaphone they are believed? I think the opposite may be true. The louder you speak, the less likely is is the truth.

    • @elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770
      @elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 5 лет назад +5

      smhollanshead yes.

    • @elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770
      @elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 5 лет назад +53

      Also. The people have no say in what laws get passed. Congressmen consistently pay much more attention to their donors than their constituancy.

  • @SiVlog1989
    @SiVlog1989 4 года назад +38

    There was a reporter who summed up the ruling of this case thus, "... And after today's ruling, corporations need only a few more years of enflaming people before the message suddenly shifts to, 'everything's great.'"

  • @DaglasVegas
    @DaglasVegas 7 лет назад +51

    I love the supreme court briefs.
    very entertainting.

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +6

      +Gad Yariv Thanks for watching and for the kind words! :D

  • @mariahdavies4232
    @mariahdavies4232 6 лет назад +17

    Thank you so much for this unbiased video. It really helped me for my class.

  • @JesseLH88
    @JesseLH88 5 лет назад +104

    It's definitely the correct decision according to precedent and the constitution. However, that does not mean it's a healthy decision for the nation.
    Consider this: if this documentary had been made by a single individual, he/she could have released it and had 1st Amend. rights to do. But because it was made by a group of people (ie a non-profit advocacy group) it no longer has 1st amend rights?
    So Bob has 1st Amend rights. Sally has 1st Amend rights. But if Bob and Sally collaborate on a documentary together, they lose those rights?
    Then there were all sorts of other distinctions in the law, like the FCC deciding which organisations constitute 'media organisations', which fall under a different set of rules. In other words, the law decides the legality of speech not on its content, but on who says it.

    • @Simon-A.-Tan
      @Simon-A.-Tan 3 года назад +11

      With all due respect, but what you are saying, is bullshit.
      No. As a unit Bob and Sally have NO rights. They only have individual rights.
      They can make a movie.... and if they want to SHOW that movie then that's an INDIVIDUAL right of each of them to do so.
      However, if they want to show it on a broadcasting network, then this needs to happen in accordance to FEC regulations applying to these networks.
      You can agree or disagree with these regulations, which is another discussion. But the whole rights thing is so f*cking clear that I don't understand the SCOTUS.

    • @JesseLH88
      @JesseLH88 3 года назад +6

      @@Simon-A.-Tan I am not sure I understand your disagreement. We agree that Bob and Sally have free speech. So how can we regulate what kind of movie they make? It seems kind of arbitrary to say that BOB can make a movie and SALLY can make a movie, but they cannot collectively make a movie?
      If that's true, then does the ACLU have free speech? Does the Cato institute have free speech? Does a newspaper have free speech? None of these are individuals.

    • @Simon-A.-Tan
      @Simon-A.-Tan 3 года назад +3

      @@JesseLH88 Sigh.... they CAN make a movie together and show it together, but they will not enjoy that right based on some legal unit, but as individuals.
      If it's the medium that you're regulating in terms of the type of content that's allowed during a specific period, that doesn't take away their individual rights to make the movie or show it on their own behalf.
      You don't need to give their unit 'personhood' for that. That basically doesn't make any sense.

    • @gns50051
      @gns50051 3 года назад +1

      name checks out

  • @j.c.ca.o.l7035
    @j.c.ca.o.l7035 4 года назад +9

    Nope corporations are NOT people.

  • @EforEvery
    @EforEvery 7 лет назад +26

    Less then 600 subs left till you reach 10,000 subs Mr. Beat!

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +9

      HECK YEAH. It only took me 7 years.

    • @cocoapuff_x
      @cocoapuff_x 6 лет назад +2

      Mr. Beat
      Now you nearly have 40k.

    • @tobys7026
      @tobys7026 4 года назад +2

      Mr. Beat 200k now

  • @seandarbe2521
    @seandarbe2521 7 лет назад +38

    Money is not speech, a bribe is a bribe, all donations should be treated as bribes.

    • @Ewwwww.
      @Ewwwww. 6 лет назад +2

      Public funding?

    • @soullesseater9327
      @soullesseater9327 5 лет назад

      @Jack R Yes.

    • @quinaIMF
      @quinaIMF 5 лет назад +6

      Money is a type of speech. I can buy an ads. I can hire people to fly pamphet or write signs. RUclips pay people to make videos.
      Sound crazy to you?

    • @glue6143
      @glue6143 5 лет назад

      dumb comment

    • @soullesseater9327
      @soullesseater9327 5 лет назад +3

      @@quinaIMF Bribing politicians is free speech. Gotcha.

  • @IBeforeAExceptAfterK
    @IBeforeAExceptAfterK 2 года назад +30

    Giving this some thought, I don't really think Citizens United v. FEC is the root of the problem so much as it is a symptom of a much deeper one. Fundamentally, there's no difference between a corporation using their wealth for political speech and a billionaire doing the same. The real problem is people using wealth (power) to subvert the democratic process. I don't know the right way to go about fixing that, but I don't think overturning this case is the answer.

    • @borginburkes1819
      @borginburkes1819 10 месяцев назад +5

      Political donations should be banned. Simple as that

    • @EthanConstantinescu-nl1nz
      @EthanConstantinescu-nl1nz 8 месяцев назад +6

      This case contributes to the problem

    • @IBeforeAExceptAfterK
      @IBeforeAExceptAfterK 8 месяцев назад +3

      @@EthanConstantinescu-nl1nz Undoubtedly. But overturning it is like putting a bandaid on a stab wound. Sure, it's better than nothing, but realistically it doesn't actually solve the problem.

    • @warron24
      @warron24 5 месяцев назад +3

      @@borginburkes1819 This completely misunderstands the nature of the problem. Political donations are already regulated. But the issue in Citizens United is whether organizations can influence elections outside of the campaigns.
      And how would that even work? Candidates wouldn't be able to campaign at all.

  • @obiomachukwuocha4918
    @obiomachukwuocha4918 2 года назад +15

    Both sides have a point:
    Conservatives would point out that this is a limit on the free speech of a group of people. If your friends formed a group, union, or corporation and made a movie with your own money, why can't you make a movie about politics?
    Democrats would point out that individuals have a limit on however much they can donate to a campaign. An already rich person can donate their own money to a candidate and then donate again multiple times through their organizations and companies

    • @yakarotsennin3115
      @yakarotsennin3115 2 года назад

      The movie wasn't just about politics, it was obviously propaganda intending on slandering Hillary Clinton to minimize her chances.
      Part of the biggest issue with this court case is the stems from the original issue of how political campaigns are funded.
      Politicians receive millions of dollars to get their campaigns up and running and much of that may come from corporations who have their own agenda.
      What pisses me off about politics as a whole is it's not based on scientific reasoning but bullshit philosophy and interpreting 200 year old laws that couldn't possibly predict the changes in today's society. If you could bring Psychology and Sociology into Politics and give these disciplines the rightful respect they deserve, the U.S. would be a very different place.
      On top of all that, many of those in positions of power come from wealthy backgrounds, they have zero experience dealing with actually issues that plague the bottom 90% of Americans. The decisions they make "for the American people" don't impact them and they don't have any understanding of our experiences, needs, desires, etc. They're the worst possible candidates to govern over us yet that's who usually gets into power.

    • @BigBoy-hl4hg
      @BigBoy-hl4hg Год назад +3

      But this ruling directly says as long as they don’t contribute to candidates. 3:38
      This concerns money spent on independent campaigns.

    • @SphincterOfDoom
      @SphincterOfDoom Год назад

      SuperPACS aren't campaigns. They're for *generating 3rd party media*.
      The Democrats are being stupid or dishonest for conflating SuperPACs and campaigns.

  • @CaptainCharismo
    @CaptainCharismo 7 лет назад +123

    A practical question at this point: Are your followers called Beatniks? Anyway, Citizen's United guaranteed that we will get the best governors money can buy.

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +23

      +Patrick Anthony Pontillo You're the first one to suggest that but it definitely has a nice ring to it.

    • @thedude8605
      @thedude8605 5 лет назад +3

      The Citizens United decision has nothing to do with state elections, i.e. for governors.

    • @owlblocksdavid4955
      @owlblocksdavid4955 4 года назад +3

      @@thedude8605 what? Citizens United ruled that corporations possess freedom of speech.

  • @geisaune793
    @geisaune793 2 года назад +5

    Why is that so many times when a case involving the legitimacy of a law is brought to court, the state courts, the district courts, and the appeals courts, i.e. the lower courts, almost always render a verdict that benefits or maintains the political or economic health of the country, but when the law is appealed to the Supreme Court, the decisions of the lower courts are almost always overturned and in the years that follow, the country becomes more polarized, or wealth inequality gets worse.

  • @LeonNikkidude
    @LeonNikkidude 6 лет назад +35

    Your videos make me feel like a law student!

  • @qiuyushi2752
    @qiuyushi2752 3 года назад +42

    Citizens United shouldn't actually be a controversial decision if the court had ruled it under the press clause rather than the free speech clause.

    • @Guy-cb1oh
      @Guy-cb1oh 2 года назад +2

      Why do you say that? I personally dont see how it would make a difference.

    • @ShankarSivarajan
      @ShankarSivarajan Год назад +7

      @@Guy-cb1oh Because people generally understand that "freedom of the press" applies to companies and not just individuals. Newspapers that aren't run by a single individual still have First Amendment protections.

    • @fiveday592
      @fiveday592 Год назад +3

      @@Guy-cb1oh Please remember, in the USA - the press is a business, not a community service. Their primary purpose is to make a profit by delivering stories people read. Not only is this why most media outlets are completely polarized into one side of the political field or the other (because, more reliable readers/viewers = more money), but serves as a reminder that money has ALWAYS decided elections. This case was a lightning rod for an existing issue, but politics are decided by popularity - which has been mostly decided by wealth and financing, for pretty much ever. Robber barons, Rockefellers, you get the idea.

    • @yonizaslavsky4246
      @yonizaslavsky4246 2 месяца назад

      Free press is free speech

  • @Kylefassbinderful
    @Kylefassbinderful 4 года назад +6

    In terms of whether or not a corporation is a person I think it's simple. Free speech should only apply to people, not a body of people united by a common goal of making money. People and corporations can (and do) go to court but the punishment isn't the same. People can go to jail, corporations cannot. We (as society) say corporations are people but I think this is false. It's a bit like if I kill someone, get my day in court I tell the judge and jury, "oh no, that wasn't _me_ who killed that person, I'm just the CEO of my body." To me this means a corporation is not a person. If a corporation is a person then we need to stop giving out fines to large corporations and just put CEO's and Board of directors in jail.

    • @yakarotsennin3115
      @yakarotsennin3115 2 года назад

      The consequences of fining corporations do nothing....
      Corporations will just find more creative ways of avoiding fines or restructuring their organization to minimize losses...
      Disbanding the corporation and taking ahold of its assets would be more equitable imo. Fuck the shareholders right in the ass so then perhaps they can be more particular about the corporations they invest into, same for Trustee boards especially.

    • @undoubtedcrow8010
      @undoubtedcrow8010 Год назад

      That's one weak analogy.

  • @piplupz1586
    @piplupz1586 6 лет назад +14

    Thank you, this was very unbiased for the most part and helpful.

  • @bovineone2420
    @bovineone2420 6 лет назад +8

    I wish I would have discovered this channel years ago. Great stuff!

  • @seacruisesports
    @seacruisesports 6 лет назад +3

    This is a really, really good piece on the specific issue. I like it.

  • @burndly
    @burndly 7 лет назад +17

    Lochner v. New York? Has anyone asked for it before? (:

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +4

      +Pewien Autysta Why yes they have

  • @CrusherX1000
    @CrusherX1000 2 года назад

    1:20 I can hear you holding back that laughter Mr. Beat ;)

  • @1Heirborn
    @1Heirborn 6 лет назад +7

    How do you put a corporation in prison for committing a crime?

    • @Aragon1500
      @Aragon1500 5 лет назад

      You don't you slap them with a fine

    • @owlblocksdavid4955
      @owlblocksdavid4955 4 года назад +6

      You imprison those employees you can (those directly responsible) and put a massive fine on the corporation as a whole.

    • @moonman239
      @moonman239 2 года назад

      A corporation is comprised of people, so you would find the culpable people and jail them.

  • @dugroz
    @dugroz 5 лет назад +4

    You should do a video on "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" (the 1886 decision mentioned in this video).

  • @MattWatts-kv8rh
    @MattWatts-kv8rh 8 месяцев назад +2

    How has American political discourse been impacted by the ruling in Citizens United, if at all?

  • @lukeh7440
    @lukeh7440 4 года назад +15

    Mr. Beat left out the fact that in oral arguments Justice Alito asked the government lawyers whether the government could ban a book that in unfavorable for a politician. The federal government lawyers said, “Yes, it is out opinion that the government can”. That is what this case was about: the first amendment.

    • @lukeh7440
      @lukeh7440 4 года назад +7

      Four associate justices voted that the government could censor books as well as movies that insult politicians. Outrageous.

    • @getyourgameon1990
      @getyourgameon1990 3 года назад

      No it was about money in politics because the first amendment only apply to people and corporations are not people

    • @lukeh7440
      @lukeh7440 3 года назад +4

      @@getyourgameon1990 I don't like most big corporations either, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a group of people, who under the constitution have the right to speech.

    • @getyourgameon1990
      @getyourgameon1990 3 года назад +3

      @@lukeh7440 As individuals they are people the corporation it self is not

    • @lukeh7440
      @lukeh7440 3 года назад +1

      @@getyourgameon1990 According to the Supreme Court, corporations get the right of free speech. I dunno what else to tell ya bud

  • @ashtoncollins868
    @ashtoncollins868 2 года назад +3

    President during this time: Barack Obama
    Chief Justice: John Roberts
    Argued March 24, 2009
    Reargued September 9, 2009
    Decided January 21, 2010
    Case Duration: 303 Days
    Decision: 5-4 in favor of CU

  • @fleetadmiralj
    @fleetadmiralj Год назад +1

    hmm yes, the well known "association of citizens" known as corporations. If anything, corporations (and I assume labor unions as well) being "entities" in the law shows that they aren't, simply, "association of citizens" (as compared to say, the local PTA or some non-profit org)

  • @hyojinlee
    @hyojinlee 4 года назад

    Thank you so much for all your videos:) I love them!!

  • @mihirwagh7911
    @mihirwagh7911 7 лет назад +14

    Mr. Beat do the Obergefell v. Hodges

  • @jettforpresident3428
    @jettforpresident3428 7 лет назад +20

    You know, I am kinda in the middle. I would like arguments for F.E.C.

  • @destinyenriquez4233
    @destinyenriquez4233 5 лет назад +1

    This video helped because you had to dumb it down for some of us THANKS! I'll be watching it like 4 more times until i FULLY understand it! I have a essay due in 4 days yikes

  • @DragonTamerCos
    @DragonTamerCos 4 года назад +3

    I mean, in terms of existing law and the constitution it seems pretty legal. If you don't want this to be happening, the most logical move is an amendment because I don't see how it conflicts with the constitution

    • @aaronmontgomery2055
      @aaronmontgomery2055 4 года назад +4

      The issue is that it would limit free speech of independent parties (not in the political sense). Lets say a group makes 2 films before the election, one is against one candidate and the other film the other candidate, should they be allowed to release their films? Its an issue of limiting who can say what for what reason. It becomes this slippery slope.

  • @SpencerFH
    @SpencerFH Год назад

    OMG this video was in my Politics textbook! So cool and validating of RUclips educational content!

  • @PremierCCGuyMMXVI
    @PremierCCGuyMMXVI 4 года назад +23

    They definitely need to over turn this. America is a representative democracy. Not an oligarchy

    • @AdamSmith-gs2dv
      @AdamSmith-gs2dv 4 года назад

      So restricting group political speech is a good thing? BCRA limited group political speech it basically said you couldn't spend money on anything to support a candidate if you did so as a group. How does that make any sense? So Bob and Marry individually have free speech but they can't team up together to support a candidate? Imagine if this was applied to RUclips, it basically says RUclips can't have ANY political content 80 days before an election outside the established media. Is that fair to all the small channels who don't have the "media exception clause" that rags like CNN and NYTs do? After all if you are a full time youtuber you have to file taxes as a business! Sorry but the court ruled correctly in this case, if they went the other way the government could block any group speech theoretically since all speech other than speaking involves spending money on something at some point

    • @the8thgemmer467
      @the8thgemmer467 3 года назад +10

      @@AdamSmith-gs2dv I think your missing the point. Bob and Mary aren’t gods. They can’t just distribute their opinions to the masses indefinitely. They can only do that if they have enough money to do so. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the population does not have the resources to do it. Appealing to constituents with the resources to support or destroy you suddenly becomes much more important than anything else. If each campaign has finances based on their last election results and cease to be dependent on those who can finance them, then they will focus on getting their message across more than anything. There will be no side effects. Now, Bob and Sally may cease to be able to distribute propaganda for a candidate, but nobody bars them from expressing their opinion. If you believe publishing partisan propaganda to the masses constitutes free speech, then think of it this way: barely anyone has the money to do this. Therefore, the existence of any income inequality is a violation of free speech because it limite the free speech of the vast majority of the population. The logical conclusion would be that all currency must be abolished, by your logic. With equal financing the voices of the masses and the forces on which the candidates depend are not groups of individuals lucky enough to be able to make a campaign dependent on them, they are the masses in the ballot box. Those voices are shut when the priorities of politicians are to appeal to those with money, and they are many more voices.

    • @wanderingthewastes6159
      @wanderingthewastes6159 3 года назад

      The8th Gemmer barely anyone had a newspaper either.

    • @PremierCCGuyMMXVI
      @PremierCCGuyMMXVI 3 года назад +2

      @@AdamSmith-gs2dv get money out of politics

    • @Deranfan
      @Deranfan 2 года назад +1

      A constitutional amendment or some kind of legislation would be necessary. Overturning citizens United would go against the 1st amendment.

  • @smhollanshead
    @smhollanshead 5 лет назад +10

    The first Amendment says Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. Under the Constitution, it does not matter if the person speaking is a person or a corporation. Congress may not pass laws that prevent speech, including Hillary the movie. By the way, corporations can only speak through people.

    • @AdamSmith-gs2dv
      @AdamSmith-gs2dv 5 лет назад +7

      Spot on. If the court ruled the other way then the government could regulate group speech which would be bad. I dont think many people recognize this...

    • @Aragon1500
      @Aragon1500 5 лет назад +5

      Not if it worded its decision in a way that only refers to corporate entities. The movie wasn't banned completely just told to wait after a primary which is completely fair. Furthermore depending on said content Hillary could have sued for defamation of character. You want free elections you need to wait until candidates are chosen before doing exposes. If we are going to consider companies people then we have to ban all private donations to politics

    • @Kurvaux
      @Kurvaux 4 года назад

      Adam Smith
      At least in that scenario the government is still accountable to its citizens

    • @owlblocksdavid4955
      @owlblocksdavid4955 4 года назад

      @@Aragon1500 what matters isn't whether the ban was temporary or permanent. A temporary ban on speech is just as much a violation of the first amendment. Either corporations have free speech, or they don't.

    • @Aragon1500
      @Aragon1500 4 года назад +6

      Companies aren't people so they don't get the 1st amendment

  • @danielgrudzinski9806
    @danielgrudzinski9806 Год назад

    damn, its been a long and joyful journey

  • @jettforpresident3428
    @jettforpresident3428 7 лет назад +2

    Great video!

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +1

      +Jett For President Thanks!

  • @jovanweismiller7114
    @jovanweismiller7114 4 года назад +15

    As I've said for years, 'Democracy. The best system money can buy!'

    • @pleaseenteraname1103
      @pleaseenteraname1103 2 года назад +1

      Constitutional republic of democratic ideals in my opinion is better. I’m still somewhat skeptical of direct democracy.

  • @kyleritchie862
    @kyleritchie862 7 лет назад +2

    Do you think you could do a video on the FLQ? My history/economics teacher described the heavy handed government response and how it was the last major terrorist-related-event in Canada to date as a result of said action by the government. Would be interesting to get your run-down of the event.
    Love the videos - just found them tonight and have watched about 10 of them.

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +1

      Thanks for your great suggestion! I receive so many requests that for now I only take video suggestions from my patrons on Patreon - if you pledge to on there please let me know on through the site so it’s more streamlined.

  • @alivewell2920
    @alivewell2920 3 года назад +3

    No, they shouldn’t be able to give money to politics then take it off theirs taxes. This is part of the problem in America.

  • @sdrobinson2000
    @sdrobinson2000 2 дня назад

    I mean, this is still going on. It's insane!

  • @Yannis1a
    @Yannis1a 6 лет назад +3

    So if corporations are people then those that mean Disney will become the future president of the USA?

    • @owlblocksdavid4955
      @owlblocksdavid4955 4 года назад

      They're not actually people. They just possess freedom of speech.

  • @ashleighstratmann7783
    @ashleighstratmann7783 6 лет назад +1

    Corporations itself isn't a person so to say, but it is run by people who is protected by our civil rights. So really, the people who run the corporations does have rights and are free to express it even through their corporations. Although I'll admit it's annoying to think it that way

  • @alexking7262
    @alexking7262 2 года назад +2

    I’m honestly not sure how I feel about this case, I’m also pretty divided when it comes to it!

  • @hollydowns2279
    @hollydowns2279 4 года назад +2

    Why I am a disenfranchised USA citizen ! If I had known what I now know , I would have saved up in my 20s to leave this monarchy

    • @mindyourbusinessxoxo
      @mindyourbusinessxoxo 3 года назад

      You still can. I barely got 3k from ride-sharing and bailed to Germany on my 25th bday. I've never felt so free. My blood pressure has drastically dropped

  • @96alexmay
    @96alexmay 2 года назад

    So... Can someone explain that thing of corporations being people? Because in civil law corporations do have personhood, but not the same as an individual , the corporation is called personalidad moral in spanish and the individual is personalidad física, both legal but way diferent ins rights and obligations. So tell me, please how is in America?

  • @emjay2045
    @emjay2045 3 года назад +3

    The people - oops - corporations, should be taxed as people without those special loopholes. Can’t have it both ways. (Like the death penalty. )

  • @kiandocherty3589
    @kiandocherty3589 5 лет назад +1

    Mr Beat, your Bernie love is showing.

  • @twelch12
    @twelch12 5 месяцев назад

    The 1st amendment states that people have the right to: Speech, Assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. One side says you can do all 3 at the same time an the other says that you can only do one at a time.

  • @Genedide
    @Genedide 2 месяца назад

    This case should rank in the top five most important cases in the US history. It takes away the leverage of the vote; even if your guy wins on an anti-war promise, Boeing and Raytheon can pay them to do otherwise while in office.

  • @gabrielvdenton
    @gabrielvdenton 4 месяца назад

    Very well explained, thank you, Mr Beat! I learned something 😌 I think that corperations should not be counted as people and should not be given the rights of people. It gives corperations too much power that should instead be in the hands of the people. 😊 It is unconstitutional because the constitution states that people or the electoral college should elect politicians. When corperations interfere, they are often severely impacting the outcoome of the vote.

  • @DrocksErocks
    @DrocksErocks 3 года назад

    For me it’s no I don’t think corporations are people but I also don’t agree with banning a movie/documentary simply on the basis that it could compromise an election. If it’s salacious or libelous or just plainly deceitful it should be sued but something about the government prohibiting a simply hit piece doesn’t sit right with me either. Idk if you can reconcile between the two tho and I do recognize the problems that come out of this ruling more broadly. Idk…this is one of those big court decisions that I personally can’t figure out where I stand

  • @fuge74
    @fuge74 6 лет назад

    I agree, only for independent action, and domestic. this means a BP cannot politically advertise, because it is not American nor an American citizen.

  • @demjukesdo29
    @demjukesdo29 3 месяца назад +2

    Worst decision in history

    • @its.that-time
      @its.that-time Месяц назад

      The Supreme Court had zero interest in being "fair" this election. It was about making America an oligarchic country. If you think I'm taking it too far, Jimmy Carter said the same thing. (As well as progressive democrats but that would have more bias, I guess) We have the worst wealth inequality in the world for a reason (not just this of course)

  • @ruthiecole8634
    @ruthiecole8634 2 года назад

    I'd like to have you go over more of what Citizens U. has done. Didn't they try to usurp the word person, (?) something like that.

  • @BigOlSmellyFlashlight
    @BigOlSmellyFlashlight 2 года назад

    if its run by people, it is people

  • @whiterunguard698
    @whiterunguard698 2 года назад

    Mr. Beat, could you do a video on Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S 394 (1886)
    I believe you’d like the significance of the case ;)

  • @jacksonbangs6603
    @jacksonbangs6603 3 года назад +2

    I do not agree with Citizens United. Simply put, I don't think there can be unlimited spending in our elections.

    • @MrVedude
      @MrVedude 3 года назад +3

      That's not issue Citizens United decided. It decided that a movie could not be banned even though it mentioned a candidate. It was a good ruling!

    • @nearn8517
      @nearn8517 3 года назад +2

      @@MrVedude The ruling result is corruption and money in our politics.

  • @kuhinde
    @kuhinde 4 дня назад

    Bro warned us😭

  • @HistoryNerd808
    @HistoryNerd808 7 лет назад +2

    Can you do one on DC v. Heller?

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +1

      I get a lot of requests for that one, but the Patreon supporters get first dibs.

    • @HistoryNerd808
      @HistoryNerd808 7 лет назад

      Mr. Beat Gotcha

  • @nngnnadas
    @nngnnadas 7 лет назад +1

    I don't realy get why the "corporation are people" part is so important. is it better that a rich individual will fund a propanda piece than that a corporation will do it?

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +4

      I think the idea is that more propaganda pieces will favor the interests of the rich, as opposed to the rest of us, assuming their interests are different than everyone else.

    • @sunnycorax
      @sunnycorax 7 лет назад +1

      From what I have read and listened to on the subject the idea of "corporations are people" is that people don't give up their rights when they act as a collective. As an individual person I can promote, speak, and create as much content as I want and spend as much money as I want doing it. Just because I work with a bunch of other people in a union or an organization advocating a specific political outcome doesn't mean I should give up that right. That is how I've understood it. That is not to say that operations have all of the same rights as people but in this case they do. It isn't so much that one is preferable than the other but that in the eyes of the law they are both the same. It also gives, theoretically, an equal chance for people to get their voice out. Bill Gates may have swaths of money that he can put to but individuals can band together to match that speech by contributing what they can.

    • @nngnnadas
      @nngnnadas 7 лет назад

      yeah but a lot of people who complain about citizen united do seem concern in particular about the corporation bit.

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +3

      Excellent points, but about the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Don't corporations inherently have special privilege under the law? Individual rights can be argued to be distinct from collective rights. For example, the tyranny of the majority threat always summons special privileges for the individual who might be at threat. I guess what I am trying to say is that once someone joins a collective, they have both collective rights and individual rights, and the collective rights could be argued to be more limited than individual.

    • @jayr6637
      @jayr6637 7 лет назад +1

      I'm all for free speech, but "corporations are people" sounds like delusional BS from the SC Justices.
      Are all corporations people? Or is it only US corporations?
      What about Chinese or Russian corporations?
      What about a US corporation that is partially or fully foreign owned?
      Now we've just heard the FBI have indicted 13 Russians for election meddling.
      If corporations are people, maybe there was a better way to do this and be legally untouchable?

  • @alexvertikov4069
    @alexvertikov4069 4 года назад +1

    The big thing is that its not about campaigns its about independent expenditures. And yet you keep saying its about campaign contributions.

    • @alexvertikov4069
      @alexvertikov4069 4 года назад

      Also no one said corporations are people, and its irrelevant in this case because its about speech, not speakers.

  • @haroldlawson8771
    @haroldlawson8771 5 лет назад +2

    Funny that unions aren’t mention

  • @MG-tx9yb
    @MG-tx9yb 3 года назад

    Was there no money in politics before citizens United?

    • @mnm1273
      @mnm1273 3 года назад

      there was the possibility of regulating it. Which is now practically gone (a corporation just has to do what a candidate wants instead of paying them directly)

    • @mnm1273
      @mnm1273 2 года назад

      @Jimmy Lowhoes Limiting the amount of spending everyone can do. It's much better than having everyone be servants of the companies they need the campaign funding of.
      Limiting campaign funding helps smaller candidates who don't stand a chance at outspending established Candidates who'll have much stronger backing and find it easier to get deals.

  • @itsbethsa19
    @itsbethsa19 Год назад

    I am so confused, this was about freedom of speech how did it become relevant to campaign contributions?

    • @piggy8761
      @piggy8761 5 месяцев назад

      I thought it was the other way around wtf?

    • @piggy8761
      @piggy8761 5 месяцев назад

      Wasnt it the reverse?

  • @vsauce4120
    @vsauce4120 4 года назад +2

    *Michael Bloomberg joined the chat*

  • @Jacobsters
    @Jacobsters Год назад

    Decided on my second birthday, that's crazy

  • @chrisx5628
    @chrisx5628 Год назад

    helpful! thank you!

  • @TheSSUltimateGoku
    @TheSSUltimateGoku 6 месяцев назад

    John Paul Stevens saw the future literately. The parties have been become glorified. We can just put in a president that nobody wants just because we can fuck this ruling!

  • @Bob-l8v
    @Bob-l8v 2 месяца назад

    This is a really bad take on this case. The ruling didn't "open the floodgates" on spending unlimited money on campaigns, as self-identified "media outlets" were completely free to do this prior to the ruling. This case simply removed this arbitrary restriction on non-self-identifying "media outlets" based on "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" bit within the First Amendment.
    The dissenters were trying legislate from the bench, which is not their job. I completely agree with Justice Stevens that a new amendment should be submitted, but not simply ruled on by decree by a branch that doesn't have the power, essentially nullifying the whole "balancing powers of the branches" idea.

  • @punkeratthecasbah2114
    @punkeratthecasbah2114 5 лет назад

    Endless amounts of corporate money in politics, what could go wrong? Why didn't we do this a long time ago? This law allows those companies into our elections, and into the pockets of our politicians. The Republican Party works for corporate America, sell the working man out 10/10 times for more corporate profits. Just ask middle class Unions, right to work states, the Minimum wage for those hurting the most and the working mans SS & Medicare. The Republican party always has the working man paying the price for Republican party policy and always in the favor of corporate America. This has to end, vote BLUE.

    • @ATTJ7628
      @ATTJ7628 5 лет назад

      Sorry to tell you but every party, even third parties like the Libertarian party are corrupt and retarded.

  • @jurgnobs1308
    @jurgnobs1308 2 года назад

    i can't judge on the legal arguments. but politically, this is one of the most damaging cases.
    but of course justices are meant to decide on legal merit, so it's a tough one

  • @Fraublitz
    @Fraublitz 4 года назад

    It is in the Super Pac Money mostly used right now in the Lincoln Project.

  • @erock736
    @erock736 28 дней назад

    Anybody who believes that we still have a functioning government for the people really needs to open their eyes.

  • @0111pokemon
    @0111pokemon 5 лет назад

    Wait, how do Super PACS help elect a candidate?

    • @dawite8464
      @dawite8464 4 года назад +7

      AppleClassicGamer unlimited amounts of soft money can be donated to a superpac, and the superpac can use the money to make ads for a candidate they support

  • @gregbits6109
    @gregbits6109 2 года назад

    Did this create superpacs?

  • @raymondperez5776
    @raymondperez5776 5 месяцев назад

    I’m here because RFK spook out against this and I agree with Mr. Beat.

  • @exmcgee1647
    @exmcgee1647 10 месяцев назад

    BTW the decision also protects labor unions and their ability to create content for and endorse candidates .
    Do most of you have a problem with that ?

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  10 месяцев назад +3

      I'm not sure if you know this, but I actually think the Court mostly got this decision right.

    • @exmcgee1647
      @exmcgee1647 10 месяцев назад +1

      of course i know this and I agree . M-F was horrible 1a infringement .
      @@iammrbeat

    • @trashcanthertrdman8459
      @trashcanthertrdman8459 3 месяца назад +1

      Unions should be able to, companies shouldn't. Simple.

    • @exmcgee1647
      @exmcgee1647 3 месяца назад

      @@iammrbeat I was speaking to the ignorant ones , not you .
      See Trashcanwhatevers ignorant response .

    • @exmcgee1647
      @exmcgee1647 3 месяца назад

      @@trashcanthertrdman8459
      OK , Why ? and use legal reasoning , not your "feels ".

  • @Locojjona
    @Locojjona 7 лет назад +4

    get mr beat to 10000

  • @briannadayton1081
    @briannadayton1081 7 лет назад

    You should have a series on presidential scandals!

  • @Justagamerhere1
    @Justagamerhere1 7 лет назад +5

    this video really makes me want to buy a Nike shoe for some reason now. :)
    I'd like to see some globally recognized symbol be used for a corporation that doesn't represent any Corporation at all.

    • @sunnycorax
      @sunnycorax 7 лет назад

      Gotta get that ad revenue. :p

    • @iammrbeat
      @iammrbeat  7 лет назад +2

      You just made my head hurt. lol I am so confused

  • @victoriabaker6943
    @victoriabaker6943 2 года назад

    Corporations are not people. They are A mass of people, but unless they are all “Borg” it’s unlikely they have the exact same ideas. If they, as a group, are providing funding to ruin a candidate, then as individuals of this corporation they should make their remarks known by name.
    Corporations hide behind A mass of people & say they are the voice, but it is not true. It is what they want people to believe so that they can gain their favorite drug, power.

  • @nomduclavier
    @nomduclavier 4 года назад +3

    I can see some pretty shady shit happening there...

  • @Hakiimthedream
    @Hakiimthedream 2 месяца назад

    in theory i agree with the majority opinion but in practice, it’s coercive against democracy, because of the decision big money is politics

  • @michaelheeheejackson7255
    @michaelheeheejackson7255 4 года назад +1

    Easily one of the worst decisions ever made

  • @nicollaney
    @nicollaney 7 лет назад

    I don't agree with this decision but if there's no way to overturn it I think corporations should pay more taxes then they're currently paying that is the waste that can happen they should also keep more jobs here in the USA.

  • @zayedelahee2166
    @zayedelahee2166 3 года назад +1

    Imagine they make a grocery store for billionare companies, and in a rack, they have prices for each candidate. Like $20 bil to get Hillary elected, $15 for trump

  • @benjaminjones8782
    @benjaminjones8782 Месяц назад +2

    money /= speech.

    • @SteveWebber1776
      @SteveWebber1776 17 дней назад

      @@benjaminjones8782 how is money not speech?

    • @benjaminjones8782
      @benjaminjones8782 15 дней назад

      @ I believe all people are created equal, if some people are born with more money does that also mean they’re born with more speech?

    • @SteveWebber1776
      @SteveWebber1776 15 дней назад

      @@benjaminjones8782 the quantity of speech available to one person has no bearing on whether or not money is speech.
      I could just as easily flip the question on you and ask - if someone is born into a family that owns a large newspaper should they be allowed to run it?

  • @flamefusion8963
    @flamefusion8963 7 лет назад +14

    People should be able to spend money to promote candidates they like.

    • @Camelotsmoon
      @Camelotsmoon 6 лет назад +19

      Flame Fusion I agree, PEOPLE should be able to, not corporations. If the head CEO of bank of America wants to reach in his pocket and donate to a compaign that's fine, but a corporate entity should not be able to.

    • @gearbear4530
      @gearbear4530 6 лет назад +3

      Why can't corporations do it?

    • @sivor6401
      @sivor6401 6 лет назад +12

      because corporations are not "the people" mentioned in our constitution. Us individual citizens are the people. It wasn't corporations that the founding fathers spoke for when they stated "We the people," It was the ordinary man.

    • @raney150
      @raney150 6 лет назад +3

      Universe's Explosion because corporations don't get a vote anyway.

    • @gearbear4530
      @gearbear4530 6 лет назад +3

      Corporations are composed of people with said rights.

  • @mamateva
    @mamateva 5 лет назад +1

    You use iMovie, right?

  • @son_hoang0496
    @son_hoang0496 Год назад

    this isn’t getting overturned any time soon, especially with the justices rn 💀

  • @idwtgymn
    @idwtgymn 2 года назад

    The real problem is voters who are so ignorant and irresponsible that they are swayed by political speech. We should be passing an amendment to place minimum responsibility requirements on voters instead, like they are supporting themselves and can answer basic objective questions about who they are voting for.

  • @harmonstarlord46
    @harmonstarlord46 3 года назад

    Corporation are not people but against the people even the people are giving money to them. Corporations has agendas for themselves. So Corporations are not people not for the people not for the Government and not for their Country. So if you are not for your country then who are they. Stay tune. label the Corporations that they are people is a political action.

  • @hangukhiphop
    @hangukhiphop 10 месяцев назад

    can u plz cover buckley v valeo that one nuked campaign finance so hard it makes citizens united look like a coughing baby

  • @aaronbradley3232
    @aaronbradley3232 6 лет назад +1

    I hope nobody freaking agrees with it because but I'm not going to look because like I said I'm trying to clean up the language this is serious stuff. I think I've had all the learning my brain can handle for the day. I've watched at least 60 of your videos so yeah my head starting to hurt