3 ms·
I said the perceived corruption is bigger than the actual corruption. I didn't say "Citizens United is a good ruling." Not sure why you leaped to that. But, si
by clucas 4y ago
I said the perceived corruption is bigger than the actual corruption. I didn't say "Citizens United is a good ruling." Not sure why you leaped to that.
But, since you brought it up, can you point out any laws passed since CU that were pushed by lobbyists, but were broadly unpopular with the general public? Or laws that failed to pass due to a lobbying effort, despite being broadly popular with the general public? Anything were we can trace this supposed corrupting effect of direct corporate influence and see a result that is actually contrary to what the electorate wants?
I agree it was a bad ruling and should be overturned, but I don't think the doomsday scenarios predicted after the ruling have actually happened. I'm open to being proven wrong though, show me what you got.
- dylan604 4y agoSupreme court doesn't pass laws, so we're crossing the streams of two subjects in the same comment thread. The Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people and we're dealing with the aspects of that. The Supremes then decided that civil rights were okay to no longer have protections, so we're now dealing with that. The Supremes decided that men get to decide what health care women can have. Why would Congress need to act when the Supremes are legislating from the bench on their behalf, only they don't take the hit because it was the Supremes that did it.