@rbreich Money is speech.

Bribery is the *most compelling speech*.

Just ask any congressman or SCOTUS judge.

@rbreich @artcollisions Citizens United is not what caused corporations to be treated as people, it merely upheld that by saying that since they are people, they have a right to free speech. Corporations have been treated as people in this country since the 1800s.

Congress acknowledged this principle explicitly in the so-called Dictionary Act of 1871, which laid down rules for construing federal laws. Contained in Section 1 of Title I of the United States Code, this provision notes that, "unless the context indicates otherwise," the "words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

I'm not saying it was a good ruling. It's a terrible ruling. But it is not what made corporations people. Can you please edit your post to correct? This is now the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen seen this misinformation going around which makes us no better than Twitter or facebook

@rbreich I go back even further, to Dodge v. Ford:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

@rbreich Let corporations have free speech as if they were people, but:

Take all private money off political campaigns.
Cap salaries and limit terms for both congresspeople and senators.
Ban insider trading for all politicians and their immediate families.
Ban lobbying aka legalized corruption.
Ban gerrymandering.
Declare voting day a nationwide holiday.
Accept Driver's license or State ID as unequivocal ID proof.
Facilitate vote by mail and in person.
Repeal the electoral college.

@rbreich

HEY! Profits are people, too, my friend! And, everybody knows that money doesn't corrupt anybody.

**That's sarcasm, y'all, so don't @ me, okay?**

@rbreich Yes, "people under the First Amendment" ... but now being legally threatened for endangering children in their support for Pride Month.

Which, by implication, means "people" could be so threatened.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/08/business/target-attorneys-general-pride-month/index.html

@rbreich on first glance ebay you said seems to be true. I cannot speak for why the supreme court came to such a decison.

What about the parliament and passing a law in the parliament for banning such donations?
What is the way forward?

@rbreich and yet, this pig is still in place.

Reminds me of the 50 years lost on legislating abortion or theERA, even through thos times of full Democratic Party control of both Houses and the Presidency. How do you account for the destruction of people’s lives over this clear negligence on the part of the leadership? Is it any wonder people just walk away from the awfulness of the situation? From compromised politicians willing to put a donation check ahead of human beings?

@rbreich When I first heard about Citizens United I thought that it was the worst Surpreme Court decision since Dread Scott. And time has only proved it to be even worse than I imagined.

If the Surpreme Court ever totally loses its legitimacy, Citizens United may well be the first of many terrible decisions people will point to as proof that no one should be paying any attention to Surpreme Court rulings. If things keep going, I could even see this leading to a dissolution of the United States in some form, perhaps through civil war but I'd be more inclined to think through some other mechanism where the states just agree to what amounts to a divorce (something akin to Brexit perhaps?). And you can believe that Russia and China and North Korea and probably a few middle eastern countries are just hoping something like that happens to us.

@rbreich

Perhaps the single worst ruling in the court’s history.

@rbreich

A good book that deals with the consequences of Citizens United is "States of Neglect" by William Kleinknecht