Coffee Party, move to amend the Constitution re money and free speech

Inline image 1
PLANNING & ORGANIZING MEETING FOR "MOVE TO AMEND" IN THE BAY AREA
Tryon Library, Wednesday, March 26th at 6:30 pm
On Wednesday evening, March 26th from 6:30 p.m. at the Tryon Public Library on Langley Ave, midway between Ninth Ave and Davis Highway, there will be a special meeting of the Pensacola Coffee Party with the individuals, groups, and organizations who want to participate in the Move To Amend (MTA) Campaign and form a Move To Amend Coalition (MTAC).
We also welcome those who are considering supporting the coalition.
The purpose of the meeting is to plan and organize the formation of the MTA Coalition and a MTA affiliate, and begin planning.
The initial goal of the campaign is to raise the awareness of our community by educating and informing the community of what Move To Amend is and the proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By raising the awareness of MTA, the campaign's intent is to lead to city, county, and state governments' endorsement of the resolution to support the proposed 28th Amendment.
As many of you know, Move To Amend is a national grass roots movement working to pass a 28th amendment to the Constitution that will declare that money is NOT speech and that a corporation is NOT a person.
The March 26th meeting is the follow-up to the March 12 meeting and the contributions and resolve of those who attended to plan the initial kick off event(s) for the Move To Amend campaign in the Bay Area. The formal name and geographic expanse of the campaign has not yet been decided; however, some of the suggestions included: MTA Coalition of the - Panhandle, Emerald Coast, Gulf Coast, Pensacola Bay Area, and Northwest Florida.
The use of Move To Amend's short documentary film, "Legalize Democracy," will be discussed as a means to inform on local public access television.
Individuals and groups interested in supporting, affiliating with, and/or partnering with the to-be-formed Move to Amend Coalition in our community are urged to attend.
IF you or you know someone who represents a local group or organization that may be interested, please CONTACT Mike Potters at (850)512-4893.
PLEASE POST, FORWARD, AND INVITE  INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE CAMPAIGN!

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Im all for campaign finance reform.

I doubt this will be abolished though.

Labor unions benefit more from Citizens United than big conservative donors
http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-united-koch-brothers-elections/

be careful what you wish for.

othershoe1030 wrote:Thank you for posting that article. I had read before that this notion started with some note in the margin by a clerk and was taken as part of the ruling. As far as going into contracts with people or corporations goes I can see the point but as far as contributing money as they are now allowed to do I'm not in favor of that. I'm like with the idea that corporations are people when they can be executed or sent to jail or shot or some truly human activity like that, or even die for that matter.

I'd like to see some evidence that unions have benefited as much or more from this ruling as have corporations. I can't see that they could have other than in a really abstract way. It would have to be shown in dollars donated by unions vs corporate interests that the unions had given or donated more than corporations. I await the evidence with doubt.

well how about look at one of your own leftist websites.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top 50 or more there, left.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

the second link for unions and national donors

and if you look at this graph which is put together with data from open secrets you will see union tops the amount spent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

and you can decipher this if you really need to at the moment and they are gearing up again.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-4-4-151032009.html

I could go on, but I wont. Just with that, just understand what you asking for. Its not going to just hurt GOP more if that is what some are hoping for.

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Thank you for posting that article. I had read before that this notion started with some note in the margin by a clerk and was taken as part of the ruling. As far as going into contracts with people or corporations goes I can see the point but as far as contributing money as they are now allowed to do I'm not in favor of that. I'm like with the idea that corporations are people when they can be executed or sent to jail or shot or some truly human activity like that, or even die for that matter.

I'd like to see some evidence that unions have benefited as much or more from this ruling as have corporations. I can't see that they could have other than in a really abstract way. It would have to be shown in dollars donated by unions vs corporate interests that the unions had given or donated more than corporations. I await the evidence with doubt.

well how about look at one of your own leftist websites.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top 50 or more there, left.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

the second link for unions and national donors

and if you look at this graph which is put together with data from open secrets you will see union tops the amount spent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

and you can decipher this if you really need to at the moment and they are gearing up again.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-4-4-151032009.html

I could go on, but I wont. Just with that, just understand what you asking for. Its not going to just hurt GOP more if that is what some are hoping for.

Okay, my bad.  I was thinking in terms of right and left and didn't differentiate or include outside groups like Americans for Prosperity the Koch brothers  front organization etc. I should not have limited the money input into campaigns to merely include corporations since these 501 (c) (3) groups have run away from the pack in their giving. Here's another chart showing how they outshine unions



http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/

The fact remains that the system has been bent out of shape by the Citizens United ruling.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Thank you for posting that article. I had read before that this notion started with some note in the margin by a clerk and was taken as part of the ruling. As far as going into contracts with people or corporations goes I can see the point but as far as contributing money as they are now allowed to do I'm not in favor of that. I'm like with the idea that corporations are people when they can be executed or sent to jail or shot or some truly human activity like that, or even die for that matter.

I'd like to see some evidence that unions have benefited as much or more from this ruling as have corporations. I can't see that they could have other than in a really abstract way. It would have to be shown in dollars donated by unions vs corporate interests that the unions had given or donated more than corporations. I await the evidence with doubt.

well how about look at one of your own leftist websites.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top 50 or more there, left.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

the second link for unions and national donors

and if you look at this graph which is put together with data from open secrets you will see union tops the amount spent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

and you can decipher this if you really need to at the moment and they are gearing up again.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-4-4-151032009.html

I could go on, but I wont. Just with that, just understand what you asking for. Its not going to just hurt GOP more if that is what some are hoping for.

Okay, my bad.  I was thinking in terms of right and left and didn't differentiate or include outside groups like Americans for Prosperity the Koch brothers  front organization etc. I should not have limited the money input into campaigns to merely include corporations since these 501 (c) (3) groups have run away from the pack in their giving. Here's another chart showing how they outshine unions



http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/

The fact remains that the system has been bent out of shape by the Citizens United ruling.

I agree. I myself do not want elections to be "bought" by anyone or any side.

But I will not be for this reform if unions get a exception like they always do. I'm so done with all the special privilege unions get. That needs to stop.

Dot wrote:

But I will not be for this reform if unions get a exception like they always do. I'm so done with all the special privilege unions get. That needs to stop.  

Like banks, or Disney World, or power companies, or oil companies, or local beer distributors.

Dot wrote:
Labor unions benefit more from Citizens United than big conservative donors
http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-united-koch-brothers-elections/

be careful what you wish for.

You should probably read the actual study on which your article is based.

It's important to remember that donations reported to the FEC are just a fraction of the amount of money being raised — much of which is now done in secret.

boards of FL wrote:

Dot wrote:
Labor unions benefit more from Citizens United than big conservative donors
http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-united-koch-brothers-elections/

be careful what you wish for.

You should probably read the actual study on which your article is based.

It's important to remember that donations reported to the FEC are just a fraction of the amount of money being raised — much of which is now done in secret.

After promising and endorsing government funding for election campaigns, which candidate was it who skipped government funding and broke open the coffers on campaign funding and reached new highs unheard of before his candidacy. What was the amount he spent compared to his opponent?

boards of FL wrote:

Dot wrote:
Labor unions benefit more from Citizens United than big conservative donors
http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-united-koch-brothers-elections/

be careful what you wish for.

You should probably read the actual study on which your article is based.

It's important to remember that donations reported to the FEC are just a fraction of the amount of money being raised — much of which is now done in secret.

After promising and endorsing government funding for election campaigns, which candidate was it who skipped government funding and broke open the coffers on campaign funding and reached new highs unheard of before his candidacy. What was the amount he spent compared to his opponent?

boards of FL wrote:

Dot wrote:
Labor unions benefit more from Citizens United than big conservative donors
http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-united-koch-brothers-elections/

be careful what you wish for.

You should probably read the actual study on which your article is based.

It's important to remember that donations reported to the FEC are just a fraction of the amount of money being raised — much of which is now done in secret.

I read enough of it boards.

Facts are changing that law will not just hurt republicans. It would be a significant chunk of change for the left as well gone.

Im not against changing it btw. Hopefully you caught that from my previous responses. I want campaign reform. and that law isn't just about campaign cash btw, there's more to it if you read what I posted.

oh and you can speculate about what's done in secret. pointless

I will be polite as I can be. The cut and paste references to Wiki are utter disservice to the majority opinion, concurrent opinions and dissenting opinions in Citizens United. I am the only person on this forum who has read all 185 pages of the Citizen United Case. I do not need Wiki to define the issues, or not put those issues in the proper context.

First there was clear precedent in the Austin case which allowed Congress to make reasonable regulations under campaign finance laws and power of Congress to prevent corruption in the process. Lo and behold the lawyers for the Movie Hillary, struck their attack of Austin from their pleadings in the lower court. The Supreme Court rather than ruling on a narrow issue within the clear precedents of Austin and McConnell, jumped off the reservation and overturned precedent and allowed this miscarriage of the law by making a sweeping NEW ruling which was contrary to the Court's precedent. So this case attacked the facial validity of statute and precedence.

Austin and Congress allowed PACs to be formed to protect free speech. The Supreme Court comes to the conclusion exactly opposite of prior court decisions and the intent of Congress that PACs. They stated PACs are burdensome because they need to appoint a treasurer, forward donation to the Treasuerer immediately, keep detailed records of people or corporations who made donations, preserve receipts for three years, and report changes to submitted information within 10days.......rather than finding out why Congress passed this law for fear of systemic corruption.....The Supreme Court ruled that these regulations were BURDENSOME......THEY COME TO THE ABSURD CONCLUSION THAN ONLY LESS THAN 2000 PACS WERE FORMED AND OTHERS WHO WANTED TO SPEAK THROUGH A PAC......GIVEN THE ONEROUS RESTRICTIONS........

Has anybody on the Supreme Court actually owned a corporation and realize the thousands of regulations a corporation faces, and using this same standard one could argue we should eliminate the IRS because of their ONEROUS restrictions on Corporations.....off the wall absurd to throw away the intent of Congress and prior Court Precedent, which none of the cut and paste LEARNED authorities on Wiki have addressed.

So as a result of this totally absurd concept that corporations who create PACs pursuant to bipartisan congressional support, the law, and prior case law decides that the equal protection test requires strict scrutiny. They improperly reject the rational basis test using this absurd bootstrap and argue that Congress needs more than a rational basis for the election financing laws, because the use of PACs under Austin are burdensome.

The court completely misses the boat on the categorization of the corporation as a disfavored speaker. This is again absurd because all across the spectrum Congress believed that corruption was a problem, and that it was important to have information to determine the same, but by bootstrapping this to a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny rather than the clear rational basis test of prior court precedent.

The Supreme Court offered no ONEROUS restrictions other than the dicta which references a treasurer and giving names and reporting changes within 10 days. I think this can be overturned by the very standards of the Supreme Court without a Constitutional amendment. A Plaintiff must show some level of corruption somewhere in this process, and a Plaintiff must show how utterly ridiculous this jumping off the reservation was when saying that the PAC reporting requirement were ONEROUS. This will stand as one of the courts worse decisions, but we are stuck with it right now, and on both sides of the political debate there is utter ignorance of the constitutional issues.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Dot wrote:
Labor unions benefit more from Citizens United than big conservative donors
http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-united-koch-brothers-elections/

be careful what you wish for.

You should probably read the actual study on which your article is based.

It's important to remember that donations reported to the FEC are just a fraction of the amount of money being raised — much of which is now done in secret.

After promising and endorsing government funding for election campaigns, which candidate was it who skipped government funding and broke open the coffers on campaign funding and reached new highs unheard of before his candidacy.  What was the amount he spent compared to his opponent?

We discussed all of that here.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t12938-foreign-money-influencing-us-elections?highlight=foreign

They say the mind is the first thing to go, Markle.

Dot wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Dot wrote:
Labor unions benefit more from Citizens United than big conservative donors
http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-united-koch-brothers-elections/

be careful what you wish for.

You should probably read the actual study on which your article is based.

It's important to remember that donations reported to the FEC are just a fraction of the amount of money being raised — much of which is now done in secret.

I read enough of it boards.

Facts are changing that law will not just hurt republicans. It would be a significant chunk of change for the left as well gone.

Im not against changing it btw. Hopefully you caught that from my previous responses. I want campaign reform. and that law isn't just about campaign cash btw, there's more to it if you read what I posted.

oh and you can speculate about what's done in secret. pointless

We don't have to speculate on anything beyond who actually donated the money.  The actual total amount of money spent as well as from which channel is all there as an objective fact.  In the link that I posted above in response to Markle, I show that if  we combine all union campaign spending over the last 25 years, it is just a modest amount more than the amount spent by superPACs and "outside sources" on Mitt Romney (or, against Obama), in the last presidential election alone.  One more time.  25 years of aggregate union spending.  1 election cycle of "outside spending" for the GOP.  

When the GOP cannot 1) read their own articles and 2) agree on objective reality....well...where does that lead us?   Think about this, the GOP base has actually been convinced that union spending on political campaigns, not dark money flowing into super PACS, is the source of all our woes!  Think about how batshit crazy that is for a second; and yet that is what the GOP base actually believes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dot and Markle, but you both believe that, right?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=288734861

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Thank you for posting that article. I had read before that this notion started with some note in the margin by a clerk and was taken as part of the ruling. As far as going into contracts with people or corporations goes I can see the point but as far as contributing money as they are now allowed to do I'm not in favor of that. I'm like with the idea that corporations are people when they can be executed or sent to jail or shot or some truly human activity like that, or even die for that matter.

I'd like to see some evidence that unions have benefited as much or more from this ruling as have corporations. I can't see that they could have other than in a really abstract way. It would have to be shown in dollars donated by unions vs corporate interests that the unions had given or donated more than corporations. I await the evidence with doubt.

well how about look at one of your own leftist websites.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top 50 or more there, left.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

the second link for unions and national donors

and if you look at this graph which is put together with data from open secrets you will see union tops the amount spent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

and you can decipher this if you really need to at the moment and they are gearing up again.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-4-4-151032009.html

I could go on, but I wont. Just with that, just understand what you asking for. Its not going to just hurt GOP more if that is what some are hoping for.

Okay, my bad.  I was thinking in terms of right and left and didn't differentiate or include outside groups like Americans for Prosperity the Koch brothers  front organization etc. I should not have limited the money input into campaigns to merely include corporations since these 501 (c) (3) groups have run away from the pack in their giving. Here's another chart showing how they outshine unions



http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/

The fact remains that the system has been bent out of shape by the Citizens United ruling.

I agree. I myself do not want elections to be "bought" by anyone or any side.

But I will not be for this reform if unions get a exception like they always do. I'm so done with all the special privilege unions get. That needs to stop.  

The influence of unions in this country has been dropping for decades.

Floridatexan wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Thank you for posting that article. I had read before that this notion started with some note in the margin by a clerk and was taken as part of the ruling. As far as going into contracts with people or corporations goes I can see the point but as far as contributing money as they are now allowed to do I'm not in favor of that. I'm like with the idea that corporations are people when they can be executed or sent to jail or shot or some truly human activity like that, or even die for that matter.

I'd like to see some evidence that unions have benefited as much or more from this ruling as have corporations. I can't see that they could have other than in a really abstract way. It would have to be shown in dollars donated by unions vs corporate interests that the unions had given or donated more than corporations. I await the evidence with doubt.

well how about look at one of your own leftist websites.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top 50 or more there, left.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

the second link for unions and national donors

and if you look at this graph which is put together with data from open secrets you will see union tops the amount spent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

and you can decipher this if you really need to at the moment and they are gearing up again.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-4-4-151032009.html

I could go on, but I wont. Just with that, just understand what you asking for. Its not going to just hurt GOP more if that is what some are hoping for.

Okay, my bad.  I was thinking in terms of right and left and didn't differentiate or include outside groups like Americans for Prosperity the Koch brothers  front organization etc. I should not have limited the money input into campaigns to merely include corporations since these 501 (c) (3) groups have run away from the pack in their giving. Here's another chart showing how they outshine unions



http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/

The fact remains that the system has been bent out of shape by the Citizens United ruling.

I agree. I myself do not want elections to be "bought" by anyone or any side.

But I will not be for this reform if unions get a exception like they always do. I'm so done with all the special privilege unions get. That needs to stop.  

The influence of unions in this country has been dropping for decades.  

So you say. They spend a ton of money on campaigns and they BUS people around the nation for political pull.

And if you really want to think they have lost influence you are being naive as well. Who got many special GOV exemptions the last few years? the unions.

Sterns and trumpka and countless unions have visited the wh hundreds of times.

Their influence goes directly to the top.

Dot wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Thank you for posting that article. I had read before that this notion started with some note in the margin by a clerk and was taken as part of the ruling. As far as going into contracts with people or corporations goes I can see the point but as far as contributing money as they are now allowed to do I'm not in favor of that. I'm like with the idea that corporations are people when they can be executed or sent to jail or shot or some truly human activity like that, or even die for that matter.

I'd like to see some evidence that unions have benefited as much or more from this ruling as have corporations. I can't see that they could have other than in a really abstract way. It would have to be shown in dollars donated by unions vs corporate interests that the unions had given or donated more than corporations. I await the evidence with doubt.

well how about look at one of your own leftist websites.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top 50 or more there, left.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

the second link for unions and national donors

and if you look at this graph which is put together with data from open secrets you will see union tops the amount spent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

and you can decipher this if you really need to at the moment and they are gearing up again.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-4-4-151032009.html

I could go on, but I wont. Just with that, just understand what you asking for. Its not going to just hurt GOP more if that is what some are hoping for.

Okay, my bad.  I was thinking in terms of right and left and didn't differentiate or include outside groups like Americans for Prosperity the Koch brothers  front organization etc. I should not have limited the money input into campaigns to merely include corporations since these 501 (c) (3) groups have run away from the pack in their giving. Here's another chart showing how they outshine unions



http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/

The fact remains that the system has been bent out of shape by the Citizens United ruling.

I agree. I myself do not want elections to be "bought" by anyone or any side.

But I will not be for this reform if unions get a exception like they always do. I'm so done with all the special privilege unions get. That needs to stop.  

The influence of unions in this country has been dropping for decades.  

So you say. They spend a ton of money on campaigns and they BUS people around the nation for political pull.

And if you really want to think they have lost influence you are being naive as well. Who got many special GOV exemptions the last few years? the unions.

We all know full well that business has a seat at the table and properly so but why is it problematic that (organized) working men and women should not also have access to the same?

knothead wrote:

Dot wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Dot wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Thank you for posting that article. I had read before that this notion started with some note in the margin by a clerk and was taken as part of the ruling. As far as going into contracts with people or corporations goes I can see the point but as far as contributing money as they are now allowed to do I'm not in favor of that. I'm like with the idea that corporations are people when they can be executed or sent to jail or shot or some truly human activity like that, or even die for that matter.

I'd like to see some evidence that unions have benefited as much or more from this ruling as have corporations. I can't see that they could have other than in a really abstract way. It would have to be shown in dollars donated by unions vs corporate interests that the unions had given or donated more than corporations. I await the evidence with doubt.

well how about look at one of your own leftist websites.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top 50 or more there, left.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

the second link for unions and national donors

and if you look at this graph which is put together with data from open secrets you will see union tops the amount spent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

and you can decipher this if you really need to at the moment and they are gearing up again.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-4-4-151032009.html

I could go on, but I wont. Just with that, just understand what you asking for. Its not going to just hurt GOP more if that is what some are hoping for.

Okay, my bad.  I was thinking in terms of right and left and didn't differentiate or include outside groups like Americans for Prosperity the Koch brothers  front organization etc. I should not have limited the money input into campaigns to merely include corporations since these 501 (c) (3) groups have run away from the pack in their giving. Here's another chart showing how they outshine unions



http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/

The fact remains that the system has been bent out of shape by the Citizens United ruling.

I agree. I myself do not want elections to be "bought" by anyone or any side.

But I will not be for this reform if unions get a exception like they always do. I'm so done with all the special privilege unions get. That needs to stop.  

The influence of unions in this country has been dropping for decades.  

So you say. They spend a ton of money on campaigns and they BUS people around the nation for political pull.

And if you really want to think they have lost influence you are being naive as well. Who got many special GOV exemptions the last few years? the unions.

We all know full well that business has a seat at the table and properly so but why is it problematic that (organized) working men and women should not also have access to the same?

I think you have gone off subject.

You leftist want big biz to not be able to pool moneys for campaigns, I want big unions to not be able to do the same thing. I am being fair.

Oh I get it knot, you want a EXEMPTION from this law if it is overturned for unions. Is that correct? Figures

To discuss a case without understanding it is entertaining.

2seaoat wrote:To discuss a case without understanding it is entertaining.

That's exactly how I feel about 99% of your ramblings LOL