• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservatives' Views of Citizens United

H

heath

I am completely new to this forum as well as to this site. I'm looking forward to engaging with this community.

I am left-leaning. I am volunteering for an organization that is attempting to address what they (and I) see as corruption in our political system. They worked with people all along the political continuum to draft the American Anti-Corruption Act. While they are making an effort to keep it bi-partisan, I can't help but notice that there seems to be more support coming from the left. Less so from the right. I am curious as to why this is. Obviously, I have my biases, so I am seeking to understand the issue from other angles and need your help to do so.

I am frustrated with the influence that lobbyists have with our elected officials. I am dismayed at the number of Congressmen (and women) who go on to be lobbyists when they are through with their terms. I am appalled by the amount of money pouring into various campaigns - I can't help but think that money is influencing policy and that those with more money end up with much louder voices in this country. To me, this is a corruption of our democracy.

I do have some conservative friends and have discussed this issue with them a bit, but like most, I tend to gravitate toward like minded people and my pool of conservative friends is rather small - which is why I'm here. In the conversations I've had, it seems that it comes down to freedom of speech and that putting limits on campaign contributions is limiting their freedom to do what they want with their money. Also, generally speaking, big business seems to be more right leaning and big business has quite the motivation to contribute largely to campaigns that they see will benefit them when it comes to influencing policy decisions.

But I see money influencing policy as a problem on all sides. It's like a nuclear arms race with each side trying to outdo the other. Unions and corporations are equally to blame.

I am frustrated by the GOP seeking campaign contributions from across the nation to influence a senate race in a particular state. Likewise, I am frustrated when the DNC (or an organization like Moveon.org) does the same. While I would love to see Wendy Davis in office, since I'm not a resident of TX, I don't feel it is my place to contribute to her campaign since she would be representing TX and not me.


If anyone on the conservative side is willing to shed some more light on their views about the Citizens United decision, or campaign finance reform in general, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Thank you,
-Heather
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am largely considered conservative and do not believe corporations should be considered persons under the Constitution. I believe many of my fellow conservatives are in the same boat. Where we disagree generally is in the amount and type of necessary regulation the FEDERAL government should be able to enact upon business.

I believe the dearth of conservatives you see following along with your org may be due to the kitchen sink effect. Pull folks together to focus on ONE issue and when the crowd swells the focus diffuses and other more partisan issues are dragged into the matter. Folks then split along ideological lines and your org becomes far less interesting to those willing to come together on that ONE issue.
 

newpublius

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
323
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am largely considered conservative and do not believe corporations should be considered persons under the Constitution.
On a visceral level, when one hears that ‘corporations are people’ it just feels wrong, doesn’t it? The word “For Purposes Of” is extremely important in the legal arena. It is an important qualifier for any given proposition. So when we say that corporations aren’t people, most people tend to agree with that proposition on a linguistic level. So, for purposes of linguistics and to discuss the meaning of the term corporation, for purposes of the English language generally, most people clearly can see a distinction between a natural person and a corporation. Hardly worth debating.

But therein lies the rub because nobody is debating the common meaning of the term ‘corporation’ – what is at stake though is the application of the Due Process Clauses within the US Constitution. There are actually two of them. One is within the V Amendment which applies to Federal action and the other is in the XIV Amendment which applies to state action. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “ [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” while its XIV Amendment companion in Section One of that Amendment reads: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

ow of course the issue should become clearer because constitutional issues hinge on government power. So, when we ask: “Are corporations people?” What we’re really asking is this:

Are corporations people for purposes of the XIV Amendment (V Amendment); such that the state government (Federal government) must provide Due Process to the corporation before depriving the corporation of life (corporate existence), liberty (the ability to engage in business) and property?

This should illuminate how the emotional appeal of “corporations aren’t people” clouds the actual issue.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I believe our govt need not do anything to limit political speech unless it's a call for violence. Otherwise we might as well not consider ourselves free for we would not be. I do believe requiring instant disclosure is warranted for that does not limit speech in any way. Limiting how one spends their money to say what they want hinders free speech plain and simple.
 

newpublius

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
323
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I believe our govt need not do anything to limit political speech unless it's a call for violence. Otherwise we might as well not consider ourselves free for we would not be. I do believe requiring instant disclosure is warranted for that does not limit speech in any way. Limiting how one spends their money to say what they want hinders free speech plain and simple.
What's even worse about it is that the government permitted some to spend while prohibiting others from spending, far less. If a company had the FEC's 'press exception' the rule against electioneering communications didn't apply. The government was picking and choosing who was and wasn't 'in the press'
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am completely new to this forum as well as to this site. I'm looking forward to engaging with this community.

I am left-leaning. I am volunteering for an organization that is attempting to address what they (and I) see as corruption in our political system. They worked with people all along the political continuum to draft the American Anti-Corruption Act. While they are making an effort to keep it bi-partisan, I can't help but notice that there seems to be more support coming from the left. Less so from the right. I am curious as to why this is. Obviously, I have my biases, so I am seeking to understand the issue from other angles and need your help to do so.

I am frustrated with the influence that lobbyists have with our elected officials. I am dismayed at the number of Congressmen (and women) who go on to be lobbyists when they are through with their terms. I am appalled by the amount of money pouring into various campaigns - I can't help but think that money is influencing policy and that those with more money end up with much louder voices in this country. To me, this is a corruption of our democracy.

I do have some conservative friends and have discussed this issue with them a bit, but like most, I tend to gravitate toward like minded people and my pool of conservative friends is rather small - which is why I'm here. In the conversations I've had, it seems that it comes down to freedom of speech and that putting limits on campaign contributions is limiting their freedom to do what they want with their money. Also, generally speaking, big business seems to be more right leaning and big business has quite the motivation to contribute largely to campaigns that they see will benefit them when it comes to influencing policy decisions.

But I see money influencing policy as a problem on all sides. It's like a nuclear arms race with each side trying to outdo the other. Unions and corporations are equally to blame.

I am frustrated by the GOP seeking campaign contributions from across the nation to influence a senate race in a particular state. Likewise, I am frustrated when the DNC (or an organization like Moveon.org) does the same. While I would love to see Wendy Davis in office, since I'm not a resident of TX, I don't feel it is my place to contribute to her campaign since she would be representing TX and not me.


If anyone on the conservative side is willing to shed some more light on their views about the Citizens United decision, or campaign finance reform in general, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Thank you,
-Heather

If you sincerely are concerned about the corruption of outside influences on either Political party then you ( and every other Democrat ) needs to acknowledge the profound and systemic damage thats been caused by groups like ACORN.

It reminds me of the Wall Street rhetoric espoused by Elizabeth Warren. Sorry, it loses allot of it's legitimacy when she refuses to address the only two Financial Agencies that were actually at the center of SEC investigations in 2004 and 2011.

I mean if you sincerely want to be objective that is, otherwise supposed bi-partisan calls for addressing these issues by the left will continue to be seen ass just more veiled rhetoric that benefits Democrats only.

Criticism's towards Citizen United are innately partisan considering the amount of influence Unions, both public and private have had on our Politicians for decades running.

If you want outside influences dealt with, you need to address them all, not just 'Corporations'
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,789
Reaction score
2,588
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If you sincerely are concerned about the corruption of outside influences on either Political party then you ( and every other Democrat ) needs to acknowledge the profound and systemic damage thats been caused by groups like ACORN.

It reminds me of the Wall Street rhetoric espoused by Elizabeth Warren. Sorry, it loses allot of it's legitimacy when she refuses to address the only two Financial Agencies that were actually at the center of SEC investigations in 2004 and 2011.

I mean if you sincerely want to be objective that is, otherwise supposed bi-partisan calls for addressing these issues by the left will continue to be seen ass just more veiled rhetoric that benefits Democrats only.

Criticism's towards Citizen United are innately partisan considering the amount of influence Unions, both public and private have had on our Politicians for decades running.

If you want outside influences dealt with, you need to address them all, not just 'Corporations'


Did the now extinct Acorn spend $60 million on elections in there entire 40 year existence?:doh
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative


Did the now extinct Acorn spend $60 million on elections in there entire 40 year existence?:doh

Spend ? NO, ACORN and groups like ACORN have been getting kickbacks worth BILLIONS for years thanks to the Big Bank shakedowns by Eric Holder and the GSE kickbacks written into Clintons 1995 National Home Ownership Strategy.

JPMorgan Deal Sets Aside Potentially Billions For Democrat Groups - Investors.com


"Just when we thought its post-crisis probe of banks couldn’t get more corrupt, the Obama administration has cut radical Democrat groups in on the record $13 billion JPMorgan Chase subprime loan deal.

On Page 5 of “Annex 2″ of the recently released consent order, you’ll find this little gem: The Justice Department mandates that JPMorgan fork over any unclaimed or unpaid consumer damages to a nonprofit group that finances Acorn clones and other shakedown groups.

They stand to reap millions. The “consumer relief” portion of the deal by itself totals $4 billion."

ACORN didn't go anywhere.

The Democrat controlled Senate thinks La Raza should get paid too ...

Report: Senate immigration bill includes nearly $300 million in slush funds for immigrants' rights groups, in language drafted by the former policy chief for one such organization | Mail Online

ACORN's early 90's 'Affordable Lending ' Chicago pilot program, led by Madeline Talbott to force banks into High Risk Loans was the Genesis of the Sub-Prime crisis.

In 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the “community support requirements” of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first “bank fair” at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

According to Talbott, if the pilot program worked “it would send a message to the lending community that it’s OK to make these kind of loans.”

No they didn't 'spend' anything, they initiated the policies that were at the root of the Sub-prime Collapse in 2008 and received and STILL are receiving Billions in kickbacks.

Maybe you should educate yourself before espousing any more ignorant rhetoric.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Do you put a dollar value on the volunteers they used to promote their agenda? ACORN was not a PAC and neither were the 501cs this admin sought to squash with the IRS....




Did the now extinct Acorn spend $60 million on elections in there entire 40 year existence?:doh
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,789
Reaction score
2,588
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Spend ? NO, ACORN and groups like ACORN have been getting kickbacks worth BILLIONS for years thanks to the Big Bank shakedowns by Eric Holder and the GSE kickbacks written into Clintons 1995 National Home Ownership Strategy.

JPMorgan Deal Sets Aside Potentially Billions For Democrat Groups - Investors.com


"Just when we thought its post-crisis probe of banks couldn’t get more corrupt, the Obama administration has cut radical Democrat groups in on the record $13 billion JPMorgan Chase subprime loan deal.

On Page 5 of “Annex 2″ of the recently released consent order, you’ll find this little gem: The Justice Department mandates that JPMorgan fork over any unclaimed or unpaid consumer damages to a nonprofit group that finances Acorn clones and other shakedown groups.

They stand to reap millions. The “consumer relief” portion of the deal by itself totals $4 billion."

ACORN didn't go anywhere.

The Democrat controlled Senate thinks La Raza should get paid too ...

Report: Senate immigration bill includes nearly $300 million in slush funds for immigrants' rights groups, in language drafted by the former policy chief for one such organization | Mail Online

ACORN's early 90's 'Affordable Lending ' Chicago pilot program, led by Madeline Talbott to force banks into High Risk Loans was the Genesis of the Sub-Prime crisis.

In 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the “community support requirements” of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first “bank fair” at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

According to Talbott, if the pilot program worked “it would send a message to the lending community that it’s OK to make these kind of loans.”

No they didn't 'spend' anything, they initiated the policies that were at the root of the Sub-prime Collapse in 2008 and received and STILL are receiving Billions in kickbacks.

Maybe you should educate yourself before espousing any more ignorant rhetoric.
And your post has what to do with the OP, which is " Conservatives' Views of Citizens United"?:2wave:

My reference to acorn was that they spent only a pittance of what americans for prosperity and american crossroad spent on one national election cycle DURING their entire existence ON ANYTHING ELECTION RELATED.
 

Del Zeppnile

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
431
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am completely new to this forum as well as to this site. I'm looking forward to engaging with this community.

I am left-leaning. I am volunteering for an organization that is attempting to address what they (and I) see as corruption in our political system. They worked with people all along the political continuum to draft the American Anti-Corruption Act. While they are making an effort to keep it bi-partisan, I can't help but notice that there seems to be more support coming from the left. Less so from the right. I am curious as to why this is...
I didn't even have to read the rest to give you an answer. Because it smacks of liberal idealism. Because if you wanted to volunteer for a bi-partisan grass roots organization that seeks to end corruption in Washington politics why didn't you join the tea party?

See how this works?
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I didn't even have to read the rest to give you an answer. Because it smacks of liberal idealism. Because if you wanted to volunteer for a bi-partisan grass roots organization that seeks to end corruption in Washington politics why didn't you join the tea party?

See how this works?
Because the tea party is far from bi-partisan?

I'm not seeing what your criticism is here.
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Maybe you should educate yourself before espousing any more ignorant rhetoric.
Says the guy linking to extremely slanted, bull**** sources.
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,789
Reaction score
2,588
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Do you put a dollar value on the volunteers they used to promote their agenda? ACORN was not a PAC and neither were the 501cs this admin sought to squash with the IRS....



Everyone is a volunteer;even Kkkarl. American Crossroads spent some $324 million in 2012.:2wave:
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
37,329
Reaction score
16,788
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Says the guy linking to extremely slanted, bull**** sources.
FYI-smearing the source isn't the same as addressing the substance. You did the former in an attempt to avoid the latter. That just doesn't cut it.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
37,329
Reaction score
16,788
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Everyone is a volunteer;even Kkkarl. American Crossroads spent some $324 million in 2012.:2wave:
And that $324 million didn't alter the outcome of a single election that year. The truth is, liberals are by nature wealth obsessed. They seem to think of nothing else but of other peoples money and how they spend it.
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
FYI-smearing the source isn't the same as addressing the substance. You did the former in an attempt to avoid the latter. That just doesn't cut it.
Cool story, bro.
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,789
Reaction score
2,588
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And that $324 million didn't alter the outcome of a single election that year. The truth is, liberals are by nature wealth obsessed. They seem to think of nothing else but of other peoples money and how they spend it.


Kinda looks like you got the ole crystal ball outta hock eh?:2wave:
 

Del Zeppnile

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
431
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Because the tea party is far from bi-partisan?

I'm not seeing what your criticism is here.
Obviously you missed my sardonic wit.
 

newpublius

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
323
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
American Crossroads spent some $324 million in 2012
In 2004 Michael Moore released Fahreneheit 9/11 and spent millions of dollars to do it, through a corporation of course, funded by a keiretsu of corporations no less. His avowed purpose was to alter the outcome of the 2004 election.

If Bush had faced a primary challenge, would the FEC have blocked it? Actually, the statute did block the release of them movie CLOSE to the election, so it created a window where it couldn't be released.

The whole point of the I Amendment isn't to sit quietly in the corner to whisper to yourself, the point is to engage in persuasive speech.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I am largely considered conservative and do not believe corporations should be considered persons under the Constitution. I believe many of my fellow conservatives are in the same boat. Where we disagree generally is in the amount and type of necessary regulation the FEDERAL government should be able to enact upon business.

I believe the dearth of conservatives you see following along with your org may be due to the kitchen sink effect. Pull folks together to focus on ONE issue and when the crowd swells the focus diffuses and other more partisan issues are dragged into the matter. Folks then split along ideological lines and your org becomes far less interesting to those willing to come together on that ONE issue.


Mornin' CB.....this might be an interest to you with those Conservatives.

Judge Michael McConnell On Hobby Lobby And The Free Exercise Rights Of Corporations.....

Judge Michael McConnell of Stanford law School was my guest in hour two today to discuss the brief he authored in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Woods cases. The transcript and audio are below:


HH: Now much of the reaction, do you think, is because of Citizens United, about which there has been considerable propaganda and debate as to how awful it is that corporations have 1st Amendment rights in the area of speech? Do you think that is the precipitating event here? Or is it just offending Obamacare that makes people so vigorous on the other side?

MM: Actually, I think Citizens United has a great deal to do with it. Even though you would think that anyone would see that for profit corporations like the New York Times Corporation have always exercised freedom of speech and press, it just, it seems just ludicrous to say that because you’re a for profit corporation, you can be silenced or censored. It’s particularly ludicrous that the New York Times Corporation itself purports in its editorial page to think that corporations like itself do not exercise free speech rights. But as you say, there was a great deal of agitation in the wake of that, and I think that that has generated a lot of this controversy. Let me give you a concrete example of that.

MM: Yes, I think that the agitation over Citizens United actually created this false view that the 1st Amendment, for some reason, does not apply to people who organize their affairs in corporate form. It wasn’t long ago that that was essentially uncontested. I was going to give a specific example involving a piece of longstanding litigation in the 9th Circuit, that’s probably our most liberal circuit out in California. The case comes out of Washington State involving a pharmacy which was challenging some Washington State regulations requiring them to prescribe abortifacient drugs. And the state fought this case tooth and nail, and the 9th Circuit has decided against the pharmacy. But in the course of that, in a single footnote, said well of course the pharmacy has the right to raise these claims either in its own name or as a representative of the owner, and that that was unquestioned. It was a one sentence footnote stating what I think the court, even a hostile court, thought was completely obvious. Maybe they had been reading the Supreme Court, because in a case in the 1970s, let me just read one sentence from this. This is Monell V. Department of Social Services. “By 1871, it was well understood that corporations should be treated as natural persons for virtually all purposes of Constitutional and statutory analysis.”

HH: And the Dictionary Act, it goes on and on. But I think part of it is if they lose this, they lose Citizens United, even the attempt to reverse it rhetorically. And if the left loses this, Obamacare, and this is a separate subject, Judge McConnell, if Obamacare as written creates all of these exceptions for religious churches, and creates all sorts of exemptions for favored secular organizations, can it, ought it to be understood as a rule, a law a general applicability such that it would benefit from the holding in Employment Division V. Smith? Or does it become obviously and fatally flawed?

MM: Well, the Court is not even going to need to reach that, because under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, federal laws have to meet a higher standard, which is the compelling interest test. And these cases were brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And then so again, assuming that the Court will not find that they are excluded on behalf, or because of being for profit corporations, that is the standard. And it is, I think, a very difficult argument for the government to make that there is a compelling interesting in doing something that constantly gets delayed, where there are thousands of exception, I think even besides the repeated delays by administrative fiat of the employer mandate altogether, about a third of the population of the United States comes within one exception or another. When you have a genuinely compelling interest like protecting health or safety, you don’t have a third of the population excluded, you don’t have arbitrary one year delays. Genuinely compelling interests are important enough that they, that the protection is applied from the beginning. I think the most you could say for this is that Congress thought, or actually, that the administration thought it was a good idea. This is not even something that’s in the act itself. It was not, the contraceptive mandate was not voted upon by Congress. It’s just, it was imposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under delegated authority in the statute. I think it’s going to be pretty hard.....snip~

Judge Michael McConnell On Hobby Lobby And The Free Exercise Rights Of Corporations « The Hugh Hewitt Show
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And your post has what to do with the OP, which is " Conservatives' Views of Citizens
United"?:2wave:

My reference to acorn was that they spent only a pittance of what americans for prosperity and american crossroad spent on one national election cycle DURING their entire existence ON ANYTHING ELECTION RELATED.
It would seem, that the OP is concerned about outside influences on our Political system and the effect of those influences on our Country.

You cant expect Conservatives to take you seriously when you ignore the massive amount of influence groups like ACORN have had on not just the American economy, but the World economy.

Groups like ACORN lobbied the Clinton administration to lower standards and the Clinton administration complied willingly.

When Clinton anounced his 1995 National Home Owners Strategy, which expanded CDO's and Co-opted the GSEs, groups like ACORN had representitves present.

The GSEs purchased or guaranteed the vast majority of these sub-standard loans and because of this complicit Government guarantee, their securities were given AAA status.

They were then distributed to Capital Markets all over the world as a "safe" investment and when our markets collapsed in 2008, it sent systemic ripples throughout the world economy.

So its a bit difficult to lend any credibillity to the concerns of a left wing action group.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Says the guy linking to extremely slanted,
bull**** sources.
Its typical of you to discredit the source and ignore the information within.

Everything I posted happened.

So either address the information or buzz off and stop trolling.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
29,115
Reaction score
7,721
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
It would seem, that the OP is concerned about outside influences on our Political system and the effect of those influences on our Country.

You cant expect Conservatives to take you seriously when you ignore the massive amount of influence groups like ACORN have had on not just the American economy, but the World economy.

Groups like ACORN lobbied the Clinton administration to lower standards and the Clinton administration complied willingly.

When Clinton anounced his 1995 National Home Owners Strategy, which expanded CDO's and Co-opted the GSEs, groups like ACORN had representitves present.

The GSEs purchased or guaranteed the vast majority of these sub-standard loans and because of this complicit Government guarantee, their securities were given AAA status.

They were then distributed to Capital Markets all over the world as a "safe" investment and when our markets collapsed in 2008, it sent systemic ripples throughout the world economy.

So its a bit difficult to lend any credibillity to the concerns of a left wing action group.
Right.. lets get this straight.. conservatives don't like Acorn.. and we don't like that kind of corrupt lobbying... so we should happy about Citizens United that makes it EASIER for groups like Acorn to Lobby?
Please.

Citizens United was a horrible decision. It has opened the door wide to foreign interests and tit for tat lobbying. "but look what Acorn was doing" is no defense.
 
Top Bottom