4 ms·

I agree with you. In the United States, the Citizens United ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens

I agree with you. In the United States, the Citizens United ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. "Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected)." should be: "Elected officials do what corporate sponsors want and say that they are doing what voters want (as affirmed by getting campaign finance donations by corporate sponsors to help them get re-elected)." > It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters. Exactly. This puts elected government officials in the role of the Dungeons and Dragons Warlock class: "Warlock patrons are powerful entities that grant mortals access to their power in exchange for a pact that binds the warlock to their patron's will." [1] They serve at the pleasure of their patron which means they are not serving "we the people". It is legalized corruption that puts profits and power above people and the good of the nation. [1] https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-warlocks-patron-guide/ https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-w...

jfengel 2y ago
Thing is, what CU enables is advertising. They can't give money to a candidate, or even to a PAC that the candidate controls. CU buys candidates by buying voters. In the end, the voters have a choice to turf out the politician. They don't. Maybe that's not what voters "really" want deep in their hearts. But they vote, and that's all anybody can really know. I care about that more than I care about what they tell pollsters.
- watwut 2y ago
  It literally pays campaign in slight disguise. Simply, in politics you can't compete without campaign. Simple as that, you get corporate takeover because of corporate ability to pay much more.
eadmund 2y ago
> the Citizens United ruling … basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. No, it didn’t: it said that the First Amendment protects the right of American citizens to air movies and advertisements critical of political candidates. The First Amendment literally says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’: a law which abridges the freedom of speech and of the press is thus blatantly unconstitutional.
- slater 2y ago
  Right, and when people rightfully criticize the Cit United ruling, they are specifically and emphatically speaking only about "movies and advertisements critical of political candidates", no other reasons. /s
- watwut 2y ago
  Yes it did and then it slapped barely believable excuse on it. Like common, this had zero to do with freedom of speech or freedom. It was about power and that is it.

jfengel 2y ago

Thing is, what CU enables is advertising. They can't give money to a candidate, or even to a PAC that the candidate controls. CU buys candidates by buying voters. In the end, the voters have a choice to turf out the politician. They don't. Maybe that's not what voters "really" want deep in their hearts. But they vote, and that's all anybody can really know. I care about that more than I care about what they tell pollsters.

watwut 2y ago
It literally pays campaign in slight disguise. Simply, in politics you can't compete without campaign. Simple as that, you get corporate takeover because of corporate ability to pay much more.

eadmund 2y ago

> the Citizens United ruling … basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. No, it didn’t: it said that the First Amendment protects the right of American citizens to air movies and advertisements critical of political candidates. The First Amendment literally says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’: a law which abridges the freedom of speech and of the press is thus blatantly unconstitutional.

slater 2y ago
Right, and when people rightfully criticize the Cit United ruling, they are specifically and emphatically speaking only about "movies and advertisements critical of political candidates", no other reasons. /s
watwut 2y ago
Yes it did and then it slapped barely believable excuse on it. Like common, this had zero to do with freedom of speech or freedom. It was about power and that is it.