Wouldn’t take an amendment, merely a reinterpretation, i.e., a reversal of Buckley v. Valeo. Which is always a possibility, and no constitutional outrage.
I think it also has to do with the fact that most of the actual crimes would have been committed by lower level people. The CEO doesn’t make decisions on what financial instruments to buy or sell.
There would be plenty of outrage, since it would require liberals to basically overturn themselves for no other reason than that they wanted a certain result. THe 1976 court was not a conservative court. Overturning Citizens United just requires one liberal justice. Overturning Buckley would require a revolution in liberal jurisprudence. Such a court would more accurately be called a “statist court”, not a liberal court. Any justices willing to do such violence to the Buckley precedent would probably also be willing to countenance government regulations on abortion, strike down Miranda, etc.
(post shortened to demonstrate the use of ellipsis (…). You’re welcome.)
A conspiracy of ignorance and stupidity. All those guys saw all those other guys making a bundle selling stuff that they knew was crap. Then their boss calls to ask why they aren’t making him any money. Then the ratings say that its triple A solid gold, sell it to your grandmother with a clear conscience. Great, now fiduciary types with pension funds to nourish could get in on the action!
When was it, perzackly? When economics geeks were fretting about signs of an economic slowdown, and Geedub came out with “Not to worry! The real estate market is gangbusters, get in now before you lose your chance! Free money, and lots of it! Going like a house afire!..”
However you spin it, Bernie authored an amendment that, if enacted, would be the first ever to restrict constitutionally protected rights.
Not to mention it was self-nullifying because it included a press exemption. Sanders evidently doesn’t know that all Americans have freedom of the press.
Unless of course he meant the corporate media, which would pretty much expose modern leftism for the insane contradiction it is.
Really? Wow, didn’t know that. But you do! I guess that settles that, then.
Don’t leave out the consumers who signed up for loans they should have known would never be paid back. It wasn’t hard to convince people to use their homes as magic money machines. In the Mid West, in 2006, you could hardly turn around without tripping over a pack of brand new $35,000 Harley Davidsons.
Yes, the CEO micromanaged his Fortune 500 company to the extent that he was making decisions on buying and selling literally thousands, perhaps millions, of financial instruments.
Well, then, a stern moral lesson is learned! Luckily, the guys who sold it to them didn’t need a stern moral lesson, lot of them took an Ethics class in business school.
And the guys who sold it to them were the CEOs themselves!
Wasn’t talking about reviewing every piece of paper in the office. But you knew that, and said it anyway.
I agree that CEOs could be subject to criminal liability, but prosecutors would be on much firmer ground prosecuting actual crimes committed by people who actually defrauded other people or organizations. But that’s not glamorous, plus I doubt the public has much stomach for sending thousands of people to jail. We want scapegoats, dammit, not real justice!
What happened to the other adaher?
It’s not fair that the Catholic Church can reach more people than a Satanic Cult.
Outside of flapping your gums most of the rights redundantly protected by the 1st and 10th amendments require some money or labor to exercise. Religion, press, assembly, and petition can’t be made strictly equal for each individual. Nor should the attempt be made.
Well, OK, if not strictly equal how about roughly equal? Unless you don’t like that either, then why say “strictly”?
Because there has to be some strict definition of “roughly equal” for your government censor to eyeball off of.
It’s a ridiculous concept. You’d have to show me where some other country managed that, because all I see is government media and private media.
Don’t like roughly equal either if it’s the government responsible for ensuring that outcome.
With the internet practically everyone has a world wide platform. at most I’d advocate universal access to the Internet.
Like there’s a difference? 