ACLU Lawyer Explains Corporate Personhood

2 min read

Deviation Actions

DAPoliticalForumClub's avatar
Published:
1.4K Views

Imgur


 Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. This is the end of democracy.  Politicians are for sale.  The wealthy are taking over our government.  Plutocracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy, corporatocracy, neo-feudalism, 1% vs 99%, and fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.  Rivers and seas boiling.  Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria!


Unless you’ve been living under a dragon for the past week, these have been the talking points that have been permeating political discussions since the recent Supreme Court decision on McCutcheon vs. FEC. It’s no different than the hysteria that erupted after the Citizens United decision, and it’s all based on the same gross misunderstanding of corporate personhood and what it exactly entails.

So as a lighthouse providing light through the pea soup-thick fog, I’m providing the following videos in order to clarity this political issue and educate others about corporate personhood and speech. They all pertain to Citizens United, but remain relevant to the current Supreme Court decision.

And no, you cannot dismiss this person as a “right-wing corporate shill.” To the contrary, he’s a left-wing ACLU lawyer who, unlike other "liberal" pundits, actually understands the Supreme Court decision.

So enjoy, and allow yourself to be educated:
  1.  Is It Just Corporate Free Speech?
  2.  Money Equals Speech?
  3.  Anonymous Speech or Disclosure in Political Attack Ads?
  4.  Corporations Can't Fool California?
  5.  Is Ron Paul Right that Corporatism is Soft Fascism?
© 2014 - 2024 DAPoliticalForumClub
Comments1
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
SwordOfScotland's avatar
Okay, I have just reviewed all five videos (6 counting the one about "Is Obama Responsible For The Russian Troops In the Ukraine [Crimea]).  It is a lot of information to assimilate, especially the concept that "More Money Spent Does Not Buy Elections". 


I, also, reviewed many of the viewers comments, especially in the one "Corporations Can't Fool California".  I was pleased to see, even with low voter turn-out, that even the millions more spent did not buy the election on Prop 16.