Obama Attacks Corporate Campaign Donations In Weekly Address… Americans Disagree
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, January 23, 2010, 10:11 AM
According to Gallup fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are.
But, not Barack Obama. America’s radical anti-business president attacked the Supreme Court’s decision this week that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity.
The Hill reported:
In his weekly address, President Barack Obama hammered the Supreme Court’s decision this week to lift limits on corporate spending on politics, saying it could lead to the unchecked influence of special interests he opposes.
The president harkened back to his 2008 campaign, in which he derided special interest groups and lobbyists and claimed victory over them after his first year in office. The decision this week, Obama warned, could undo that progress.
“This week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence,” he said of the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “This ruling strikes at our democracy itself.”
The court’s 5-4 ruling handed down on Thursday dealt a heavy blow to Obama and Democrats, who favor existing caps on corporate spending on politics.
The decision struck down the distinction between individual and corporate expenditures. That could allow corporations and unions to spend an unlimited amount of money on candidates they support or oppose. The court, however, left in place disclosure requirements for corporate and union contributions.
Most Republicans hailed the decision as one that promotes freedom of speech and that could allow for increased spending by political parties.
What a shock. After the stock market suffered its worst week since last March Barack Obama once again used his weekly address to attack American business.
Is it any wonder that 77% of investors believe this president is anti-business?
Bill Hennessy has more on the president’s unimaginable hubris.
More… Jammie Wearing Fool adds: “The Man Who Spent a Billion Dollars to Get Elected Laments More Money in Politics.”
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 54 Comments
James Doulos commented:
An interesting article here: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/09/onward-to-a-hol.html
ar05075 commented:
I had mixed emotions over this decision when I first heard it – but seeing how much Unicornboy is against it, I’ve come to the conclusion that it must be a good thing.
reitre05 commented:
Obama’s statement are hypocritical on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.
He is upset over the “special interest and lobbyists” of corporations, yet the SEIU spent $60 million to get him elected and Andy Stern seems to have his own suite at the White House?
Karen commented:
Who needs corporate campaign donations when they’ve got George Soros?
retire05 commented:
Ooops, I wasn’t finished:
How many lobbyists has Obama granted “exceptions” to in order to place them in positions of power in his administration? Tom Daschle was not a lobbyist? Pardon me if I don’t appreciate the humor in Obama’s remarks.
Nevermind that Obama used that little known rule that if you don’t take public funding for your campaign, you are not subject to an audit of your campaign donations. So the nation will never know exactly how much money flowed into his campaign coffers from not only Mickey Mouse, Minney Mouse, and yes, even George Bush, but foreign groups who set up call banks in Pakistan.
Someone please, take that shovel out of this lightweight puppet of David Axelrod’s hand
Peoples Front of Judea commented:
B-b-but that’s his base, he won, and shut up!
Obama lies commented:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/23/obama-nyt-wail-over-supreme-court-decision-on-free-speech/
snip:
It’s worth pointing out that Barack Obama had an opportunity to limit that influence in the 2008 election simply by remaining in the public matching fund program that every major Presidential candidate had used since Watergate. In fact, Obama himself pledged to do just that in 2007 and again in early 2008, but changed his mind in June when he discovered that he could raise a lot more money than his opponent — by currying favor with Wall Street and the unions, as well as ethanol companies and a host of corporate-sponsored, lobbyist-run PACs. Obama raised over $600 million in 2008 for his eventual victory.
NeoKong commented:
That from a guy who turned off the security features on his campaign website so he could raise hundreds of millions of dollars of untraceable cash.
That from a guy who has been given millions of dollars in free unopposed air time on three different news networks to push his govt. takeover of health care.
I would certainly call that a contribution.
He certainly didn’t seem to mind when Oprah Winfrey put the power of Harpo Productions behind him during the campaign.
That was worth tens of millions of dollars and it didn’t cost his campaign one thin dime.
down with dems commented:
Let’s see, the president is anti-capitalism, so is it any surprise he would not want capitalistic corporations who have grown rich on capitalism to donate to candidates who are pro-capitalism? NO
John Fembup commented:
Wouldn’t you think that a former constitutional law professor at, oh, say, the University of Chicago, would respect the First Amendment?
The first 5 words of the First Amendment are:
“Congress shall make no law . . .”
No law.
One of the specific areas in which Congress shall make no law, is “abridging the freedom of speech.”
The people grasp this, Mr. Obama. The Supreme Court gets it. Why is it so hard for a former constitutional law professor?
Agent 99 commented:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-to-go-against-the-supreme-court-ruling/blog-244227 “Obama is angry that the High Court Ruling which allows campaign spending by corporations and labor unions to use any amount they want to promote or demote any candidate of their choosing
One would have to wonder what is really behind the anger that obama is displaying . He intends to fight against the Supreme court on a ruling of 5-4. He claims the ruling is unacceptable and has ordered Congress to join him in a fight against it.
He also states this is a fight for the American People but, when he makes this statement” This ruling could jeopardize MY domestic agenda”, he loses all credibility because his whole Presidency this past year has been about a “ME” attitude” From soda head blogs Source according to SH is msnbc news. SOoooo….The Dictator plans to fight the Supreme Court??
Ladue Pundit commented:
If the electorate, including some SCOTUS justices, were familiar with our constitution, the “yes” tally would be much higher than 57%.
ACORN is getting federal (and some state) tax dollars, and giving it to political campaigns. Small donations from busboys in Chinatown are bundled into larger donations and rendered untraceable.
McCain was going to take money out of politics. Unfortunately, he allowed union and Democrat “501 (3) c” organizations to not only escape taxes but line his rival’s campaign coffers.
2010 will be an interesting year.
Callipygian1 commented:
Considering that he gets his campaign funds from offshore, I am not surprised. I can’t imagine why large corporations would want to contribute to a campaign that helps to support the comcept of capitalism…
gus commented:
Let me get this straight.
The MARXIST LOSER who spent more SPECIAL INTEREST money than anyone in history, thinks SPECIAL INTEREST money that DOESN’T SUPPORT HIM is WRONG?
And the motherfu#$ing media doesn’t see this?
kate commented:
Hubris meet Nemesis
Interesting article from the Rand Corp/CIA titled
Beware the Hubris-Nemesis Complex:
A Concept for Leadership Analysis
It covers all our highpoints (and Fidel,too!)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR461.pdf
1. HUBRIS AND NEMESIS OPPOSED—THE CLASSIC DYNAMIC …. 1
2. HUBRIS AND NEMESIS FUSED—AN EXTRAORDINARY
DYNAMIC…………………………………….. 5
Leadership Examples and Attributes ……………………. 6
A Systematic Complex, with Many Fused Parts and Layers ……… 11
Potential Applications of the Concept …………………… 14
3. IDEAS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM RELATED LITERATURES …. 20
Pathological and Malignant Narcissism ………………….. 20
Social Space-Time-Action Orientations…………………… 28
Operational Codes and Decision Modeling………………… 36
4. LOOKING TO THE PAST—AND THE FUTURE ……………. 40
Hubris-Nemesis, Narcissism, and Megalothymia in History …….. 41
Where Hubris-Nemesis Adversaries May Appear Next………… 43
Robert commented:
Re: Corporations supporting capitalism.
Corporations give plenty to Democrats as well. I think they view it more as getting access to whomever is in power.
Also, don’t forget that media entities are corporations.
DaMav commented:
Nuance lesson of the day
Obama cuts deal with Big Pharma for $ 150,000,000 ad campaign in favor of ObamaCare
This is GOOD corporate speech and ‘just part of the legislative process’
Supreme Court rules corporations can speak out on issues
This is BAD, a threat to the foundations of our democracy (insert hysterical clauses here)
Dana White commented:
Obama will not do a Clinton like shift to the middle. Instead, he will try to rebrand himself as a populist fighting against Wall Street and special interest groups. Of course it’s all a big joke! Obama fundamentally still believes that the American people are stupid and can be sold any bill of goods.
jim from cleveland commented:
General Electric and many other corporations will still give a ton of money to the statists. Blowhard asskisser Jeff Immelt, for one, sees a lot of money in GE being a government contractor. But the statists are afraid that hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller corporations, who are being killed by the Blowhard’s business-destroying policies, will spend in their own self-interest.
One only needed to hear the childish screeching of the audience at Blowhard’s appearance in Elyria, Ohio to realize he was playing before a whole lot of the parasite demographic. These people don’t want free markets. Many of them don’t even want jobs. They want their handouts. They want their Obama Money.
aprilnovember811 commented:
Is it any wonder that 77% of investors believe this president is anti-business?
Heck, the so called President is anti Constitution, anti American. What do you expect from the Kenyan born/Indonesian citizen. I know one case I hope the Supreme Court eventually hears, the one pertaining to his citizenship.
Galt commented:
It’s liberty he opposes — the idea that the government should be powerless to prevent people from associating freely and voicing their views.
In his “utopia” only the politically connected get speech and property rights. Which sounds a lot like communism — but don’t you dare call the Dems communist, they’ll throw a fit.
Then again, read this and tell me there’s any difference in policy… or rhetoric:
http://cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question35
Militant Conservative commented:
Gonna beat your ass like a red headed step child.
Dem’s been bashing corporate America for decades. Now they have a choice of who to support rather than pay extortion monies to make sure the Dem’s leave them alone.
There is a GOD and this weeks events are proof self evident.
Blue Collar Todd commented:
All this renewed rhetoric of fighting for us is a big head fake. President Obama and these Democrats want to create a bureaucratic class and that is what they are fighting for.
wanumba commented:
Obama is infused thru his bones with “redistribution,” he will not have any epiphanies. In the world’s most vibrant free market nation, he’s lived in a Marxist bubble his whole life – something that requires a lot of denying of the reality around it.
Liz commented:
This president is not well mentally, he said in his speech yesterday he finds his job “confining”, was it? Combine this with his nonsensical random policy and corrupt dealings and I say without hesitation, “IMPEACH O.B!”
Chisum commented:
Speaking of unimaginable hubris…from a certified P.O.S., Barney Frank.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Should Be Eliminated, Frank Says
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704509704575019162391608940.html?mod=e2tw
Harry Kovaire commented:
The litmus test for the 2010 elections should be support for impeachment and removal.
avery commented:
The Unions member was forse to give 6.00 more dollars for Omaba,plus their Union due.
Saint commented:
The Democrats are just upset because now the Republicans have a chance of matching their hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign donations.
Alana commented:
Have presidents ever spoken of the Supreme court before, the way Obama did in that quote?
Galt commented:
Chuckie Schumer had a similar melt-down — a tell-tale look of a bench-coach who has just seen half his team’s playbook tossed on the eve of the game.
That was (and still is) the Dems’ plan for mid-term elections: a relentless vilification of investors and employers. They assumed those targets would not be allowed to talk back. Pay taxes, yes; speech rights, no.
Tyrants can’t tolerate even the vestige of liberty. They need you to be helpless before them. Read the Declaration for a different view of rights, their origin and vesting in the individual.
Peggy commented:
The irony is that Wall St has been tight with Dems and helped get Obie elected. Industries are not generally in bed w/the GOP. Industry factions split and seek their advocates in DC. Businesses also try to hedge their bets between the parties. There’s no sense antagonizing a party that may have monolithic control in DC, as the Dems had until Brown won. Wall St has paid quite a price. I am wondering if now they’ll feel free to reject Obie’s threats, er overtures, and speak out finally–especially with their regained free speech rights.
Galt commented:
BTW, Dems are laughing in their sleeves over this. They know that a corporation is still likely to support the candidate who promises the right package of subsidies and competition-killing regs.
In other words, statist politicians can still auction their services to the highest bidder(s).
Corporations don’t want an even playing field — they want unfair advantages. Politicians are supposed to refuse but even the Founders knew the pols would give in to temptation. So they built a framework of limited government — which is the next aspect of the constitution the SCOTUS has to start taking seriously.
chili palmer commented:
Thanks to trojan horse John McCain for making this ruling necessary. McCain wanted to turn the country over to George Soros, and he succeeded. There is no transparency for billionaires like the Sandlers and Soros. Our enemy is time, as it was their friend. They played a patient numbers game, weaving their crime in an endless web that takes much work to untangle. When their groups are caught giving illegal millions to candidates, the system is so overwhelmed it only gives them a slap on the wrist, The so-called corporation that was the plaintiff in this case was a small company that wanted to sell a DVD about Hillary, didn’t have a media exemption, so wasn’t permitted to.
BarbaraS commented:
How does this clueless moron propose to “fight” the SC? They are the last word and better presidents than he have had to knuckle under their rullings. He just does not understand how our system works. He only knows how to manipulate the law for his own advantage. He reminds me of a child who pushes and pushes to see how far he can go and how much he can get away with.
Agent 99 commented:
Liz @ # 26. He is mentally ill!! Yep! And dangerous. OT but related to “sick in the head” Rather disgusting puke here http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/eat_more_canine.html And this is the first time I have seen BHO compared to Pol Pot!!! “”"I am aware that canine is a regular feature of the diet among some peoples, and that tofu is widely consumed in Japan and a few other places, including the enclaves of Berkeley and Madison. But dog and tofu are not a significant part of the diet of most Americans, and the fact that many among the radical left believe that they should be illustrates a dangerous quality of mind — one which is all too evident in the Obama administration and among its intellectual supporters: a sort of Pol Pot syndrome, if you like.”" Dear God!!
Old One commented:
A ditty I gleaned on the internet recently was a great one. It’s a recession when your neighbor losses his job, a depresesion when you get laid off, and recovery begins when the Democrats are defeated.
Don’t expect the economy to noticeably recover until the freedom destroying free enterprise destroying marxist democorrupts are gone from Congress and B+ Odumber and Queen Marxist Marie Michelle Antoinette of the Toned Arms and $2,700 day coats are driven from the Whitehouse.
Liz commented:
You know I agree that 1st amendment protections, when it comes to campaign contributions, should only apply to INDIVIDUALS, not conglomerates or corporations. One corporate or union head should not be able to require donations from it’s many citizen members and force them to contribute to causes they may or may not support. There should be no limit on individual contributions, corporations or unions should NOT be able to donate.
Agent 99 commented:
Old One…I too was searching the Internet for more ”research” I found that we can ADD yet another Commie/Marxist “hiding in plain sight” another Frank Marshall Davis kind of guy with the Common Denominator of The Over Throw Of The US Gov’t!! Brought up on Charges at The House Un-American Activities of the late 50s. A pal of BO’s Grandaddy and someone whom BO BEFRIENDED! At the Hawaii Smith Street Green Goose Bar. A Hangout for “Uncle Frank” who wrote about sex “Green Goose Bar” Style in his Book “SEX REBEL” Here http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/hey_obama_whos_freddy_1.html January 12, 2010
Hey Obama, Who’s Freddy?
Galt commented:
Corporations are voluntary structures: no one is forced to invest in them or purchase from them. Union membership (the paying of dues) is compulsory in a unionized shop.
Don’t like what a corporate has to say? Stop patronizing that company? Don’t like what your union is saying? You gotta quit your job.
Don’t like the way politicians use the power of incumbency to dominate the public debate? Then join with other like-minded individuals, pool your money, and as a single entity exercise the speech rights that SCOTUS just reaffirmed.
But remember, SCOTUS didn’t give you that right. You had it all along. Regardless of some so-called law.
jainphx commented:
Liz– That is the only honorable thing to do, but of course the Dems would never do that. The Dems right now own the government and this has to change for anything to be done.
Sherry Collins commented:
What if Hugo Chavez wanted an unknown Venezuelan American, call him Candidate X, to be elected to the Congress because Chavez and Candidate X had a personal relationship. So Citgo U.S. injects $5M into the campaign of Candidate X and Citgo U.S. injects $3M into negative ads against Incumbent Y.
Does this constitute the exercise of Chavez’ free speech in the U.S.?
Jim commented:
Has any one else noticed how many times Obummer uses the words I and me in his speeches?
spayandneuter commented:
This is bull. A corporation is not a person. They can’t vote. They don’t go to jail if they commit a crime. There is no way to keep them in check except for fines.
There is enough money thrown into the election process without letting corporations have free rein. And if corporations have the same rights as a “person”, they need to pay the same taxes as a person. No more tax breaks unless we all get one. This can work both ways.
With the general voting public so clueless, foreign corporations can get candidates elected by bombarding us with ads of unicorns and rainbows. Don’t laugh, it just happened!
–
Chisum commented:
Oh look, the troll, Sherry Collins, is back. Still spewing.
Imagine that!
JRToday commented:
Some 2,000 newspapers and almost every TV network (all owned by corporations) all campaigned for socialist Obama.
This ruling just kind of levels the playing field.
Why should a corporation that just happens to own a newspaper have special privileges?
Sherry Collins commented:
Chisum – Don’t you have an answer?
Galt commented:
Uh, corporations pay lots of taxes. They have been called “the tax collector of the welfare state” and for good cause.
If you don’t like what they have to say, respond with your own message. Or boycott.
If you deny their right to exist and their right to speak, then how do you defend your own right to peaceful assembly (the right of association, to voluntarily incorporate for a common purpose)? Your own right to speech? Why, because you’re an individual? First amendment protects speech, the act of. Congress shall make no law restricting the activity.
Chisum commented:
Cupcake, I don’t feed trolls.
Sherry Collins commented:
LOL. No answer, huh? I understand.
Chisum commented:
Do you all remember this comment? From the “Juan Williams Loses It… Slams Sarah Palin As Self-Centered & a Bad Mother” thread.
==============================
harry flashman
November 16th, 2009 | 9:49 pm | #61
Oh, no!
Yo! Sherry!
Again?
http://www.myspace.com/sherrycolli
Sweet.
spayandneuter commented:
“Galt
January 23rd, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #49
Uh, corporations pay lots of taxes. ”
My city gave Toyota a ten year tax break.
–
spayandneuter commented:
The Constitution was written for “we the people”, to protect and give us our rights and liberties as a “person”, but we are still accountable for our actions. If we break the law, we go to jail.
A corporation is a legal entity, primarily for profit, designed on paper to hold a company and not any individual person accountable for its actions. You have no legal recourse against a corporation for their actions, except monetarily. As a person, they are not accountable.
I don’t like the idea of giving the biggest pocketbooks in the world carte blanche over our elective system.
–
daveinboca commented:
spayandneuter
The reason corporations were first ruled as “persons” in 1885 was to prevent under the Fourteenth Amendment the deprivation of rights of legal groups by BIG GOVERNMENT without their having to right to defend themself to the public. That was the rule until 2002 when the M-F law deprived corporations of free speech. Most AMERICANS who understand the perils of BIG GOVERNMENT know that the first right BG tries to deprive its citizens, corporate or individual, is that of FREE Speech.
The Dems don’t understand the distrust of BG inherent among the center-right US majority, and have been the stupid party for a good three-plus years, ever since they grabbed the House and Senate in ’06. Obama simply gave the machine its chief traffic cop. Now he will demagogue on banks, but he is really after corporations given free speech—he is preaching class warfare which is the default position of libtards like himself. Go knock yo’sef out, Barack! You don’t have a clue…..
Now the latest stupid move after Scott Brown upset their takeover of the US economy by corporatist cartels and their plan to destroy small businesses apparently will be that Obama is going to come out in the SOTU next week demagoging Wall Street.
Let’s face it. Public relations and process tweaking are all the substance-less Dems can do—Obama-Lite is going to be rebrewed as Obama-Dark Beer? And it ain’t banks the voters are angry about! It’s broken promises of transparency, profligate spending and the takeover of government by crazed union bands of SEIU thugs. If he doesn’t get his health demands, Andy Stern will refuse to donate much to his kept mistresses, the DNC & DSCC.
Rebranding is going to turn around what is now incredible buyer’s remorse among independents and Dems of a blue dog stripe? Dream on.
It reminds me of Nancy Pelosi in ’06 consulting with a Cal Berkeley witch doctor who wanted to name the Dems’ Congressional takeover “Contractr On America.” She was and remains that dumb, without a clue that the Dem’s Contract is killing America economically.
And for the first time, I think Obama is almost deliberately about to turn a disaster into a catastrophe for the Dems—or else he is suicidally stupid to demagogue Wall Street when it’s Big Government the majority of voters is terrified about.
And Obama is too remote and delusional to realize that the communities he organized are a mere one/tenth of the entire USA.
spayandneuter commented:
daveinboca
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #56
While a corporation employs people and pays taxes, I don’t want them owning elected officials any more than they already do, because they made the biggest contribution to their campaign. I want to feel like someone in Washington (yeah, I know, haha) is making decisions in the interests of “we the people”. Not Humana, IBM, Chevron, Walmart, Microsoft, United Healthcare, etc,etc,etc.
–
spayandneuter commented:
daveinboca
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #56
And I understand what you are saying about “free speech”. Let them run all the ads they want about their product or store or about how much better they are than their competition. I just don’t want them selling a candidate to me. It feels wrong.
–
Galt commented:
Does it feel wrong when a politician (or a party) bases a campaign on vilifying someone’s business? And that enterprise is barred by law from responding?
So Toyota got tax breaks. Heh. In a better world every other taxpayer in that jurisdiction would step up and demand the exact same benefit. A better court system would require such…under equal protection. The other lost guarantee.
Whether it’s a tax abatement or the classic “punish the malfeasors of wealth” crusade it’s still the government picking the winners and losers. Government is no more (un)trustworthy than business, so why acquiesce to repression?
No one prospers under a command economy (except the central planners, natch).
Galt commented:
The Toyota (or Walmart) tax breaks are a great illustration of how the debate is so thoroughly hijacked by the statists.
How? Well, let’s ask our friend John McCain. He wanted to make it less likely that campaign contributions would tempt policy-makers to grant special favors.
How did he choose to do that? By limiting the policy-makers’ power to grant special breaks? Or by limiting the power of people to participate in the political process?
By thunderous acclamation the Conventional Wisdom chose latter: they say limit people, don’t limit government.
That, my friends, turns things exactly backward.
Sherry Collins commented:
Chisum – I think you have a crush on me. You follow me around like a little puppy.
spayandneuter commented:
Galt
January 24th, 2010 | 7:10 am | #59
I do see the pros and cons of both sides of this. It is a Catch 22.
I can’t give out 2,000 jobs, but a corporation can. So I want gov’t to give them some tax breaks to bring in jobs. But on the other hand, I don’t want the elected official doing what is in the best interests of the corporations and forgetting about the “people”.
And don’t forget all those “people” at Enron lost everything, jobs, health insurance, 401K. They took a terrible beating. I think they at least deserved some bailout even if it was only what was in their retirement funds.
–
Galt commented:
I want govt to give tax breaks too. To everyone. Because it’ll allow for job creation.
But when govt decides who gets the tax break and who doesn’t, that guarantees corruption.
Unlike Enron’s corruption, you don’t get to choose whether your money is put at risk — as a taxpayer your “investment” is compulsory. That is unjust.
Thomas commented:
Most of you folks are entirely retarded.
The SEIU spent $60mln on Obama? The unions on the whole probably barely spent that much total. You want to think labour unions are a threat to something and that Obama is a communist.
WAKE UP!!! HE HAD NEARLY THREE TIMES AS MUCH MONEY AS McCAIN! HE IS OWNED BY THE BANKS, BY GOLDMAN SACHS, BY MORGAN STANLEY, BY INT’L FINANCIAL SPECULATOR GEORGE SOROS!
But you probably listen to Rush Limbaugh and repeat the suicidal line that Obama hates the banks which are gouging the American people because he hates success. And you will try to vote in some new NeoCon douchebag who won’t give you more freedom but will give you more TERROR and tell you he is protecting you from it. But he might not win in the end, because the banks own Obama too.
If you’re patriotic, work against both parties!!! Work against the Federal Reserve and the financial oligarchy!
Thomas commented:
On top of all this….
the Supreme Court ruling allows Corporations to make UNLIMITED campaign donations! It does NOT treat corporations like individuals!
The corporations you faux conservatives defend hate the United States and its sovereignty, they love free immigration because WE CITIZENS pay for their cheap labour then suffer for it economically. They love free trade, which ruins our economy. And they will give unlimited amounts to keep their globalist minion Republicans (Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul types need not apply) and globalist minion Democrats (Clintonites preferred, no Kuciniches, much less Traficants). And you will pick one side over the other for superficial and emotional reasons and the country will go further towards suicide.