[mc32]

What facade? CEOs? I don’t think Dems or Repubs would like to see that. Definitely not independents.

We’d get the most pro-business candidate every time. Not that any candidate has been anti/business, but can you imagine, it’d be pro-business on steroids. Schultz, One of the Waltons, corporate raiders?

[skh]

I think you take my comment more seriously than I intended. It's a suggestion meant to provoke thought about the nature/reality of U.S. presidential elections. With the suggestion one sees that my belief is that large corporations have far more influence on presidential elections than ordinary people like me have. But we have the facade that its actual humans that elect leaders and not the economic entities that are called persons in U.S. law.

[aaronbrethorst]

So vote for elected officials who will fight for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

[mc32]

Didn’t citizens united essentially try to overturn a previous BCRA reform which disallowed a non commercial entity from publishing a political film? Basically they were trying to “answer” (a la rap battle) Moore’s 9/11 film, but got knocked down by BCRA regulation because it was considered “electioneering” while Moore’s were okay because they were published by a “bona fide filmmaker”.

I think it gets complicated but the decision had merits, I think. Obvs, the SCOTUS believes it did.

[skh]

From Wikipedia:

In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President.

The federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the United States Constitution.

They were prohibited from airing ads 30 days before the election. The decision in terms of effects and scope was terrible. It was a broad decision and had a very wide effect.

[mc32]

Yes, but had it been published by a “bona fide filmmaker” they would have been okay.

The repercussions may be wider than anticipated or liked, but the decision to not allow them to advertise and show it because it wasn’t by an established entity seems spurious.

[skh]

It had nothing to do with whether or not it was by a bona fide film maker. It was the timing of the ad and the fact that the movie was going to be broadcast. Movies in theaters were not covered by the law. Your premise is incorrect. The decision could have been narrow in scope. It wasn't. This is what people like me decry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM

[skh]

Yes! In addition to doing this I write commentary on websites in the hopes of spurring action in others. I do this in real life as well.