It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Posse of Radicals’ Want to 'Overturn the First Amendment,' Says Citizens United Founder

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
‘Posse of Radicals’ Want to 'Overturn the First Amendment,' Says Citizens United Founder
By Matt Cover
April 19, 2012
includes a video


Citizens United founder David Bossie is responding to some Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives that are attempting to rewrite the 1st Amendment !!

It seems they want to censor specific groups when it comes to political opinion.

The Supreme Court ruled on this already, but it would appear sour grapes are trying to make a point.


(CNSNews.com) – David Bossie, founder of the conservative group Citizens United, says that people advocating to overturn the landmark Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are a “posse of radicals” who are trying to "overturn the First Amendment."

“So that’s why I say they’re a posse of radicals who are looking for a problem rather than a dedicated group of people who are analyzing something seriously and trying to find a way forward,” Bossie said in an exclusive interview with CNSNews.com on Wednesday.

Bossie made the remarks outside a Capitol Hill conference of liberal groups and Democratic legislators advocating for a constitutional amendment that would in effect overturn the Citizens United decision, on the grounds that the high court’s ruling in Citizens United’s favor will eventually lead to massive corporate spending in political campaigns.



It may not matter because agencies like media companies and even organizations like the Democratic and Republican national Committees are corporations.

This could be just hoodwinking by Democrats in Congress to appease the sour grapes crowds.



“We haven’t seen that type of giving,” said Bossie. “We’ve seen individual wealthy donors give to these SuperPACs but we’re not seeing corporate giving and that’s really what we’re talking about – that’s their big hang-up. We just haven’t seen it.”

Bossie said that Democrats and their liberal allies were trying to create a 28th Amendment to overturn the First Amendment.

“They want to create a 28th Amendment to overturn the First Amendment,” he said. “That’s really what the essence of this discussion here is today.”



Nancy Pelosi is of course all for it
(related thread) --> Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!


If something like this is allowed to happen, who gets censored next ?


The Democrats must think this is a popular belief.

Why else would they do this ?

I wonder if this was approved by Obama ?

Is somebody crazy here ?





posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Do you think that a corporation should have the same rights as one HUMAN BEING?

That's the issue here. The person who was crying about this is a corporate/big money/wall street shill.

Corporations are drowning out the free speech of regular Americans and buying off our elections. It's a complete threat to our democracy which is headed towards OLIGARCHY.

This guy has the gall to call these people radicals? He's the radical. Billionaires and corporations right now have the power to dump UNLIMITED amounts of money into SuperPacs.

A Billionaire or Corporation can spend millions and not bat an eye. They can essentially buy a politician or destroy one. This is serious. Don't fall prey to the partisan politics.

Who is going to stand up for the middle class and poor? Soon no one will. We are headed back to the 1920s.
edit on 20-4-2012 by MiddleClassWarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MiddleClassWarrior
Do you think that a corporation should have the same rights as one HUMAN BEING?

That's the issue here. The person who was crying about this is a corporate/big money/wall street shill.

Corporations are drowning out the free speech of regular Americans and buying off our elections. It's a complete threat to our democracy which is headed towards OLIGARCHY.

This guy has the gall to call these people radicals? He's the radical.


If you're asking me, I don't know if it would really make all that much difference.

There Are many "people" who "speak" for a corporation.

Treasurers and Directors have authority to spend money.

If "owners" and "officers" of corporations were "artificial" humans, maybe we could see a bigger difference.

Anyway, "they" will find a way around it as usual.

This all could be an example of a catch-22.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I've always wondered, since the Citizen's United ruling:

"If a corporation is guilty of murder, manslaughter and the like, can they get the death sentence like any other person?"

I mean if we are going to accept that any corporation is a person, shouldn't any penalties that can be applied to a person be applicable to a corporation as well?

Somehow I doubt that the various corporations (and politicians) would go to the electric chair any time soon, but it'd be one way to get the point across.

M.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet
I've always wondered, since the Citizen's United ruling:

"If a corporation is guilty of murder, manslaughter and the like, can they get the death sentence like any other person?"

I mean if we are going to accept that any corporation is a person, shouldn't any penalties that can be applied to a person be applicable to a corporation as well?

Somehow I doubt that the various corporations (and politicians) would go to the electric chair any time soon, but it'd be one way to get the point across.

M.


But they do !! They DO.

The EPA, OSHA as well as other agencies levy fines and regulations and assessments on corporations all the time.

And many corporate officers and employees are convicted of crimes once in a while too.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





And many corporate officers and employees are convicted of crimes once in a while too.




They get a theoretical "slap on the wrist" with a fine. Name ALL the arrests from those who caused our economy to collapse.

Wo do you work for, Goldman Sachs?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I love how these cookie-cutter political attacks appear like clockwork every 4 years.

Uh-huh.

See a pattern, people?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MiddleClassWarrior
reply to post by xuenchen
 





And many corporate officers and employees are convicted of crimes once in a while too.




They get a theoretical "slap on the wrist" with a fine. Name ALL the arrests from those who caused our economy to collapse.

Wo do you work for, Goldman Sachs?


Here's some links to the DOJ Corporate Fraud Task Force
(I agree it's like a fox guarding the hen house), But.


WASHINGTON – President Bush created the President’s Corporate Fraud Task Force on July 9, 2002 to restore public and investor confidence in America’s corporations following a wave of major corporate scandals. Since its inception, the Task Force has compiled a strong record of combating corporate fraud and punishing those who violate the trust of employees and investors. Today, the member agencies of the Task Force recognized these successes at an event commemorating its fifth anniversary.

Chaired by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, the Task Force includes senior Department of Justice officials, seven U.S. Attorneys, the heads of the Departments of Treasury and Labor, and the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Communications Commission, United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. In the last five years, the task force has yielded remarkable results with 1,236 total corporate fraud convictions to date, including:

214 chief executive officers and presidents;
53 chief financial officers;
23 corporate counsels or attorneys; and
129 vice presidents.

Additionally, the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section has obtained more than one billion dollars in fraud-related forfeitures and has distributed that money to the victims of corporate fraud.


President’s Corporate Fraud Task Force

pdf


...your tax dollars at work for YOU





Wo do you work for, Goldman Sachs?


No, State Street Corporation



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
It depends on which side of the aisle you sit on and what issue it is, whether you agree with the First Amendment or not. If you are on the left, and the right wants their say (I.E. TEA Parties) then the left doesn't think too much of the First Amendment.

If you are on the right, and the left wants their say (I.E. The Occupy Movement) then the right doesn't think too much of the First Amendment.

Think about it, neither party likes to hear an opposing viewpoint, and they want to silence the other side from speaking their mind. BOTH sides are enemies to free speech.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Anyone who support amending the constitution are union and there version of pac shills.

Where o where does a liberal exist in Amerika are they all just communists and marxists and socialists?

You know the only people who just love to have the government write a law for everything central ized power and thought and control.

Zieg heil

edit on 21-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
It depends on which side of the aisle you sit on and what issue it is, whether you agree with the First Amendment or not. If you are on the left, and the right wants their say (I.E. TEA Parties) then the left doesn't think too much of the First Amendment.

If you are on the right, and the left wants their say (I.E. The Occupy Movement) then the right doesn't think too much of the First Amendment.

Think about it, neither party likes to hear an opposing viewpoint, and they want to silence the other side from speaking their mind. BOTH sides are enemies to free speech.


that must mean i'm neither then because i think people deserve freedom of speech no matter which side as long as you don't attempt to ruin someones life.
though i do think that corporations shouldn't be allowed to dump money into the pockets of our politicians since it gives those companies too much leverage and influence on the political system in america.
i doubt corporations would get as far as they do if they couldn't openly buy people, though they still would, but it would hurt them more if found out.
corporations have what amounts to unlimited funds to spend, drowning out anyone else, it is horrible and wrong. it makes a mockery of our government.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Anyone who support amending the constitution are union and there version of pac shills.

Where o where does a liberal exist in Amerika are they all just communists and marxists and socialists?

You know the only people who just love to have the government write a law for everything central ized power and thought and control.

Zieg heil

edit on 21-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

ooo nothing like a diatribe of a demagogue to start the day.
right, because the case didn't give the unions the ability to give money to candidates they support, so in your mind they must be working against themselves then? is that about right?

i am a liberal and i don't support communism, this country has some socialism, well no a lot of socialism already.
you are thinking of fascism, at least learn about the topics before you spew this tired old rubbish.

you going goosestepping now?




top topics



 
1

log in

join