Who agrees with "Citizens United"?
Just want to take a quick poll to see how many agree or disagree with the "Citizens United" ruling. Basically, this ruling allows unlimited amounts of money to go to the campaigns of politicians, and it allows the donor to remain anonymous. I dont want this to turn into a Republican vs Democrat fight. Im pretty sure just about everyone is united equally against this decision. Just think about how stupid this really is. There could be foreign companies donating millions to the campaign of a Presidential candidate, and you would never even know, because they are anonymous. It could be drug cartels, terrorists groups, foreign countries...All donating unlimited amounts of cash to pursuade a candidate into office. So, Agree or Disagree?
@Crash - unions were never allowed to donate unlimited amounts of cash anonymously. never!
@Tea Party - Theres a HUGE difference between "being a part of" and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to push for TV ads, and campaign funding. I want to be part of politics too, thats why it is retarded to allow this much money to flow through anonymously. I dont even have the right to know where all this money is coming from? At least tell us where the cash is coming from. Like I said, it can come from overseas, drug cartels, terrorists and you would never know. Its stupid!
@Greta - In 2008 is had to be documented, not anymore. Now its a big freakin anonymous free for all.
- 7 years agoFavorite Answer
Disagree. Citizens United has fundamentally changed the political landscape by allowing corporations and the very wealthy to donate millions to Super PACs, which gives them a disproportionally large voice. We saw that during the recall campaign for governor in Wisconsin, where super Pacs spent $30 Million to support Scott Walker.
We all know that Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have given tens of millions of dollars to PACs. And Greta failed to point out that a donation to a super PAC is indeed anonymous, and there is no donation limit BECAUSE THE DONATION ISN"T GOING DIRECTLY TO THE CANDIDATE - that is why super PACs are so dangerous. Greta, that is the sort of intentionally misleading statement that we have come to expect from Fox News.
@Tea Party Patriot: I'll believe that corporations are people when the state of Texas executes one.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Donations to political campaigns are essential to any campaign. During the 2008 Presidential Election, both parties received vast amounts of funds from online websites and fundraisers. Any donation over $200 must be documented.
- 7 years ago
Only in the manner that it allows corporations to enjoy the same benefits that Unions have enjoyed for decades in using financial influence in elections. The result now is that Unions no longer have the monopoly on such influence.
Personally, I wish there weren't so much money being tossed around to influence elections by any type of entity
- widjajaLv 43 years ago
provided that the authorities is a dictatorship or by some means oppressive to its human beings. you need to comprehend that governments advance alongside with the inhabitants develop. you need to no longer have, as an get mutually the length of authorities of Luxembourg run the u . s ..
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous7 years ago
It's fine, it would be unconstitutional to not allow corporations to be part of politics.