# Bernie Sanders' answer to Citizens United **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734 "2011-12-10T14:49:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/21 "2011-12-10T18:48:37Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Allowed corporations to essentially buy politicians. Through their unlimited spending and their greatly higher means when compared to any other segment of the population, they are at a position of much higher power than they should reasonably be in a democracy. Levitt, in “Freakonomics”, pretty much shows that you don’t win elections by outspending the other candidate. Read it some time. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/22 "2011-12-10T18:55:23Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I wasn’t citing a supreme court decision. I was noting that your right to free speech doesn’t include causing a stampede that can get people killed. Sorry, but when you badly misquote a Supreme Court Justice’s opinion most reasonable people assume that you concur with that opinion. Anyway, the quote you’re using has been used to justify every attempt to stifle free speech since it’s inception by scaring people into thinking they’re children will be harmed unless X is banned. > [@](#): > > Allowing very wealthy corporations to manipulate elections without limit is a stampede writ large. Citizens United doesn’t do that. Anyone telling you it does either doesn’t know what they are talking about or is trying to manipulate you. > [@](#): > > If you allow unlimited spending you turn the political process into an auction. And as it happens, there are no high money bidders on the side of non corporations. If politics in America becomes a war between corporations the conversation shifts so that the contrasting rights of individual citizens isn’t even on the table. > > The reason you can’t yell “fire” in a theater is because the damage is weighed against your right to speech. The damage that limitless money does to our system is far worse than a few squashed grannies. The US wasn’t meant to be an oligarchy. For starters, the law that \*Citizens United \*overturned, McCain-Feingold, was less than ten years old so are you saying the US used to be an oligarchy until ten years, stopped being one during the Bush years and is now in danger of becoming one under Obama? Secondly, it doesn’t allow for unlimited spending on political campaigns or prevent limiting the ability of people to spend money to influence campaigns. Third, what does fining the Sierra Club for distributing leaflets criticizing the environmental record of a Republican Senatorial candidate and banning movies criticizing Hillary Clinton have to do with preventing wealthy people in America from gaining too much power? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/23 "2011-12-10T19:04:49Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, they are. As it relates to free speech, corporations are associations of people. I don’t agree. I have worked for corporations and owned the stock of corporations. In neither case did the corporation represent my interests, but instead they represented the interest of the majority voting block of shareholders. Typically this was just a few people who owned large blocks of shares and were able to use this to control the board and the companies political speech. Now I dmit that I could only own shares in companies that I agree with the majority shareholders, but it is all bullshit. The top 1% own something like 90% of all publically traded shares of corporations, so really all corporate speech is speech by the 1%. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/24 "2011-12-10T19:06:39Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I don’t agree. I have worked for corporations and owned the stock of corporations. In neither case did the corporation represent my interests, but instead they represented the interest of the majority voting block of shareholders. Typically this was just a few people who owned large blocks of shares and were able to use this to control the board and the companies political speech. > > Now I dmit that I could only own shares in companies that I agree with the majority shareholders, but it is all bullshit. The top 1% own something like 90% of all publically traded shares of corporations, so really all corporate speech is speech by the 1%. The top 1% aren’t people? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/25 "2011-12-10T19:07:32Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Allowed corporations to essentially buy politicians. No it does not. Citizens United has nothing to do with donations to political candidates. I don’t mean to come across as rude, but have you actually read the decision? I ask because most people I know who object to it, when questioned, admit to not having read it and when they hear what Anthony Kennedy actually said, they usually change their minds. > [@](#): > > I’m well aware of this. The problem, however, is that this ruling had consequences reaching far beyond that. Pointing this out is all well and good, but it’s basically saying, “It’s the thought that counts” when someone, in an attempt to fix a problem with the local sewage treatment plant, opens a valve that starts draining it into the local water supply, and using that to justify not fixing the pipe. The fact of the matter is that the Citizens United case blew the balance of democracy brutally out of whack. It overturned a law that was less than ten years old. Are you sure you’re not overreacting. > [@](#): > > This isn’t what bothers people. “People” can criticize, support, and donate to political candidates. This is all well and good. But here’s the thing, and here’s what Sanders is asserting: corporations are not people. For the purpose of free speech, corporations have always been treated as people. Examples of this are the NAACP, the Sierra Club, [Moveon.org](http://Moveon.org), the NRA, and various unions. Explain to me how fining the Sierra Club for distributing leaflets criticizing candidates or fining the Wisconsin Right to Life Corp. for airing radio ads criticizing political candidates isn’t a violation of the First Amendment? Does that also mean that Southern states had the right to shut down newsletters from the NAACP and the SCLC? If you argue that doing so would violate the First Amendment then explain why if you feel that the NAACP and Martin Luther King’s SCLC weren’t people and therefore should n’t be protected? Thanks ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/26 "2011-12-10T19:13:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The only thing you’re missing is that such a proposed amendment would nullify the right of groups to petition the government (where two sections of the constitution disagree, the newer section holds). Individuals could still do so under the 1st amendment, but not groups.. \*If \*we adopted the alternative of excluding ALL legal-fiction-“person” entities; but I suppose the Court could still pull out of the “penumbrae” a special dispensation for parties and advocacy groups, just as long as their donations were exclusively from individuals. So instead\*\* Sanders’ proposal tries to limit the change to _“for-profit”_ corporations or LLC’s\*\*, leaving such entities as the NRA or the UAW still in position to exert their expression rights. Now, that is a way to try to sell it as “it’s only against the Big Money corporate interests”, and while I am not going to deny my own prejudice is to prefer Big Business/“The 1%” should play in the political field with a hand and a leg tied behind their backs, it is also why in the big picture it’s a non-starter as to enactability. You not only need 2/3 of Congress but also 38 state legislatures to sign on and I can imagine quite a few of them refusing to strip away corporate rights without doing the same to unions and community-advocacy groups. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/27 "2011-12-10T19:17:36Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > \*If \*we adopted the alternative of excluding ALL legal-fiction-“person” entities… That was the proposal I was responding to: > [@](#): > > I think if you tried to advance this the first thing do would be to simplify the proposal to eliminate the free speech rights of all non-natural persons. Not just for-profit corporations. You had to follow the quotes back two steps from my post to see that, so maybe you missed it. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/28 "2011-12-10T19:17:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The top 1% aren’t people? Of course the one percent are people, but in this case they are using resources that I and others partially own to make speech that I don’t necessarily agree with. This can be a problem with unions too, but corporations have much more money and are controlled by a smaller group of people. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/29 "2011-12-10T19:18:36Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I don’t agree. I have worked for corporations and owned the stock of corporations. In neither case did the corporation represent my interests, but instead they represented the interest of the majority voting block of shareholders. Typically this was just a few people who owned large blocks of shares and were able to use this to control the board and the companies political speech. I’m pretty sure those few people are–what’s the word?–people. ETA: Just saw your last post. That still does not give anyone a “foothold” as it relates to the liberties guarded by the first amendment. Whatever “evil” you think this permits, well, it permits it. You can’t abridge free speech based on the category of the speaker alone. If you could, that would be a chilling restriction, and a slippery slope I’d trust no one to navigate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/30 "2011-12-10T19:19:32Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Of course the one percent are people, but in this case they are using resources that I and others partially own to make speech that I don’t necessarily agree with. This can be a problem with unions too, but corporations have much more money and are controlled by a smaller group of people. You said you disagreed with the idea that corporations were associations of people. What, exactly are you disagreeing with then? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/31 "2011-12-10T19:39:29Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, they are. As it relates to free speech, corporations are associations of people. All right then, can we throw Enron in jail? Should GE be allowed to vote? Can Citibank run for office? :rolleyes: There are very large, very real differences between corporations and people, both in how they are structured, what they do, what their goals are, and how much money they have to throw into the political arena. I’m well aware that legislature against this is difficult. I’m well aware that it’s hard to logically back up limiting the speech of corporations without limiting the speech of others. But the recent elections and politics have shown that it is _direly_ necessary. Ceasing this absolutely ridiculous practice of treating corporations as legal persons is a start. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/32 "2011-12-10T19:47:59Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > All right then, can we throw Enron in jail? Should GE be allowed to vote? Can Citibank run for office? :rolleyes: > > There are very large, very real differences between corporations and people, both in how they are structured, what they do, what their goals are, and how much money they have to throw into the political arena. > > I’m well aware that legislature against this is difficult. I’m well aware that it’s hard to logically back up limiting the speech of corporations without limiting the speech of others. But the recent elections and politics have shown that it is _direly_ necessary. Ceasing this absolutely ridiculous practice of treating corporations as legal persons is a start. So then you think that the government has the right to censor books(since publishers are corporations not people) movies(since they’re put out by corporations) and most importantly you do support sanctioning various non-profit groups such as [moveon.org](http://moveon.org), the Sierra Club, the NAACP, etc. since they don’t have the right to Free Speech? If I’m wrong, please explain because that is the logical conclusion of the arguments you’ve presented. Anyway, you seem to be extremely terrified that the overturning of a law that had been on the books less than ten year will have horrible consequences for us. Please explain what about McCain-Feingold you liked, why the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn it, and why the US wasn’t the tyrannical corporatist oligarchy prior to McCain-Feingold that you’re terrified it’s going to become? Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/33 "2011-12-10T19:51:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > All right then, can we throw Enron in jail? Should GE be allowed to vote? Can Citibank run for office? :rolleyes: You can throw Enron’s people into jail, and their workers can vote. The first amendment provides no basis for restricting the speech of an association of people. That does not logically mean that we then assign all other personal rights to that association. As a constitutional matter (for example), Congress is free to tax corporations differently, even though they are an association of people. Why? There’s no constitutional prohibition. Not so with free speech. > [@](#): > > I’m well aware that legislature against this is difficult. I’m well aware that it’s hard to logically back up limiting the speech of corporations without limiting the speech of others. But the recent elections and politics have shown that it is _direly_ necessary. Ceasing this absolutely ridiculous practice of treating corporations as legal persons is a start. I disagree. And there is certainly [no consensus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Levitt): > [@](#): > > Levitt’s 1994 paper on campaign spending employs a unique identification strategy to control for the quality of each candidate (which in previous work had led to an overstatement of the true effect). It concludes that campaign spending has a very small impact on election outcomes, regardless of who does the spending. But even if it did, the first amendment is quite clear, and I see no way of restricting corporations’ speech without creating an extremely dangerous precedent. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/34 "2011-12-10T19:51:38Z")
How, specifically, have “the recent elections” shown the dire necessity of reversing the _Citizens United_ ruling? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/35 "2011-12-10T20:34:28Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Of course the one percent are people, but in this case they are using resources that I and others partially own to make speech that I don’t necessarily agree with. This can be a problem with unions too, but corporations have much more money and are controlled by a smaller group of people. So then you don’t think that corporations like the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and the NRA are protected by the First Amendment and you think it was right that they be sanctioned under McCain-Feingold? Would you mind explaining your reasoning because that seems pretty extreme to me. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/36 "2011-12-10T21:06:09Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then you don’t think that corporations like the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and the NRA are protected by the First Amendment and you think it was right that they be sanctioned under McCain-Feingold? > > Would you mind explaining your reasoning because that seems pretty extreme to me. > > Thanks I can join the NAACP, the NRA, and the Sierra Club. In fact, people join these organizations because they wish to associate with like minded individuals and pool their resources to petition the government and affect the political process. Well and good. Nobody is forced to participate with these organizations. Unions are more problematic. On the surface they are the same in that a group to workers join together to pool their economic and political power, but the problem is that people can be pressured to join a union. In fact, in certain industries you can be excluded from employment opportunities if you don’t join the union and pay the dues. This is wrong (IMHO) because a person’s resources (union dues) can be used for political action and speech that they don’t approve of. A publically traded corporation is much the same but worse in some ways. As an employee it would be distasteful to me if my company came out strongly on a political issue, especially if that issue was one I disagreed with. I know I can always quit my job, but this is the same result that occurs with unions. I don’t want to be forced to pay to play. As a minority shareholder it is even more problematic in my mind. In this case property I own (albeit jointly) is being used to finance speech I potentially do not agree with and my only recourse is to sell my property or buy more shares until I am in a majority position. Well this would be find if I was Soros, the Koch brothers, or Rupert Murdoch. But for me, even though I am solidly in the top 5-10%, it sucks and this is not an option. I think that people, both the 1% and the 99%, should be free to voluntarily join together and sway campaigns in any way they want, but corporations are not really groups of people voluntarily coming together. And this does not even address the fact that many American corporations are have signifigant foriegn ownership and may have goals that are not in this countries best interest. Just my 2¢. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/37 "2011-12-10T21:14:33Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I can join the NAACP, the NRA, and the Sierra Club. In fact, people join these organizations because they wish to associate with like minded individuals and pool their resources to petition the government and affect the political process. Well and good. Nobody is forced to participate with these organizations. > > Unions are more problematic. On the surface they are the same in that a group to workers join together to pool their economic and political power, but the problem is that people can be pressured to join a union. In fact, in certain industries you can be excluded from employment opportunities if you don’t join the union and pay the dues. This is wrong (IMHO) because a person’s resources (union dues) can be used for political action and speech that they don’t approve of. > > A publically traded corporation is much the same but worse in some ways. As an employee it would be distasteful to me if my company came out strongly on a political issue, especially if that issue was one I disagreed with. I know I can always quit my job, but this is the same result that occurs with unions. I don’t want to be forced to pay to play. > > As a minority shareholder it is even more problematic in my mind. In this case property I own (albeit jointly) is being used to finance speech I potentially do not agree with and my only recourse is to sell my property or buy more shares until I am in a majority position. Well this would be find if I was Soros, the Koch brothers, or Rupert Murdoch. But for me, even though I am solidly in the top 5-10%, it sucks and this is not an option. > > I think that people, both the 1% and the 99%, should be free to voluntarily join together and sway campaigns in any way they want, but corporations are not really groups of people voluntarily coming together. And this does not even address the fact that many American corporations are have signifigant foriegn ownership and may have goals that are not in this countries best interest. Just my 2¢. That’s fine, but then, to be honest, I’m not sure why you’d object to Citizens United since the overwhelming majority of corporations that give money to candidates or spend money agitating on behalf or against various political candidates are non-profits. The same is true of all the companies sanctioned under McCain-Feingold, such as the Sierra Club for distributing leaflets criticizing political candidates they disagreed with. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/38 "2011-12-10T21:17:13Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > A publically traded corporation is much the same but worse in some ways. As an employee it would be distasteful to me if my company came out strongly on a political issue, especially if that issue was one I disagreed with. I know I can always quit my job, but this is the same result that occurs with unions. I don’t want to be forced to pay to play. How is that any different than if you were employed by an individual who advocated for political views you disagreed with? > [@](#): > > As a minority shareholder it is even more problematic in my mind. In this case property I own (albeit jointly) is being used to finance speech I potentially do not agree with and my only recourse is to sell my property or buy more shares until I am in a majority position. Well this would be find if I was Soros, the Koch brothers, or Rupert Murdoch. But for me, even though I am solidly in the top 5-10%, it sucks and this is not an option. How is that any different if the corporation engages in a business strategy you disagree with? Maybe they decide to move manufacturing to China, and you are anti-outsourcing. Maybe they decide to acquire a chain of whorehouses in Nevada, and you are anti-prostitution. > [@](#): > > I think that people, both the 1% and the 99%, should be free to voluntarily join together and sway campaigns in any way they want, but corporations are not really groups of people voluntarily coming together. And this does not even address the fact that many American corporations are have signifigant foriegn ownership and may have goals that are not in this countries best interest. Just my 2¢. In what way are corporations (ie, the people who own part of the business) not groups of people voluntarily coming together? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/39 "2011-12-10T21:48:13Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I can join the NAACP, the NRA, and the Sierra Club. In fact, people join these organizations because they wish to associate with like minded individuals and pool their resources to petition the government and affect the political process. Well and good. Nobody is forced to participate with these organizations. > > Unions are more problematic. On the surface they are the same in that a group to workers join together to pool their economic and political power, but the problem is that people can be pressured to join a union. In fact, in certain industries you can be excluded from employment opportunities if you don’t join the union and pay the dues. This is wrong (IMHO) because a person’s resources (union dues) can be used for political action and speech that they don’t approve of. > > A publically traded corporation is much the same but worse in some ways. As an employee it would be distasteful to me if my company came out strongly on a political issue, especially if that issue was one I disagreed with. I know I can always quit my job, but this is the same result that occurs with unions. I don’t want to be forced to pay to play. > > As a minority shareholder it is even more problematic in my mind. In this case property I own (albeit jointly) is being used to finance speech I potentially do not agree with and my only recourse is to sell my property or buy more shares until I am in a majority position. Well this would be find if I was Soros, the Koch brothers, or Rupert Murdoch. But for me, even though I am solidly in the top 5-10%, it sucks and this is not an option. > > I think that people, both the 1% and the 99%, should be free to voluntarily join together and sway campaigns in any way they want, but corporations are not really groups of people voluntarily coming together. And this does not even address the fact that many American corporations are have signifigant foriegn ownership and may have goals that are not in this countries best interest. Just my 2¢. If you go back an read the actual decision, note the parts trying reconcile how you would gag the ACLU and or the Unions while still allowing News corp/Disney/PRI to have exemptions. They also have non-american investors and owners, are you claiming that ABC/NPR and the NYT should be placed under the same gag rule? Also I do not have any real power on what the ACLU/SPLC/FFRF spend my money one once I gift it to them, but I can choose to invest in companies/non-profits who do tend to spend there money in ways I agree with. You are not compelled to invest in Enron. ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734/40 "2011-12-10T22:18:10Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > This movement doesn’t stand a chance of making it through congress. Not a snowball’s chance in hell. In order to pass it, they need a super majority (in order to amend the constitution), and I’d be shocked if it got any real support from either party, mainly because that sort of political donation is the bread and butter of politicians. That’s how they finance campaigns. _Nobody_ would be freely willing to give that kind of dough up, and even if we elect different politicians, we’d be extremely hard-pressed to find 60 senators and god knows how many representatives who would be willing to put their own personal gain below the will of the people. Well, to look at a different part of the OP, there is a way to get Congress to propose this, should there be enough of a groundswell. That way would be for the states to request a convention for constitutional amendments. If two-thirds of the states (34) requested a convention, then this convention could propose this amendment, with no influence from Congress. But, because the convention could, in all likelihood, propose amendments on anything it wanted (see the original constitutional convention), the powers that be would likely capitulate and propose this amendment through Congress before the convention would be called. Such a possibility has some relationship to the way that the Seventeenth Amendment came to be proposed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-sanders-answer-to-citizens-united/605734.md?page=3)