Corporate Media Blacks Out Coverage of Bill to Overturn Corporate Personhood

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by poncho, May 13, 2015.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Last Wednesday, the grassroots organization, Move to Amend, held a press conference at the National Press Club to announce that six members of the U.S. House of Representatives were introducing legislation to overturn Citizens United v FEC to make free speech and all other rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution available only to “natural persons,” not corporations or limited liability companies. The legislation would also give Federal, state and local governments the ability to limit political contributions to “ensure all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process.”

    When corporations overturn the will of the people, it’s widely covered by corporate media. When the people fight back, the news is frequently blacked out. As of this morning, we could find no major corporate media outlet or corporate wire service reporting on last Wednesday’s press conference by Move to Amend. That might be because there was evidence presented at the press conference of a groundswell of public momentum to overturn Citizens United, the decision handed down on January 21, 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court that opened the floodgates to corporate campaign spending in elections along with super wealthy donors.

    The press conference revealed that 16 states have passed resolutions asking Congress to overturn Citizens United while almost 600 municipalities and local governments across the country have done likewise. Almost two dozen other states have resolutions pending or introduced.

    Continue . . . http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/05/corporate-media-blacks-out-coverage-of-bill-to-overturn-corporate-personhood/
     
  2. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,460
    Likes Received:
    136
    Another conspiracy theory? :smilewinkgrin: Keep 'em coming brother; we need to know what is really going on in the shadows of our shadow government. :flower:
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No it's the same corporate conspiracy that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about. This information "black out" is just another example of how the media shields the tyrants in Washington and their corporate masters from being held accountable. You know how that is right? :smilewinkgrin:

    You work hard to keep people divided and they work hard to keep people un-informed. It wouldn't be to "far fetched" for one to conclude that you have a "symbiotic" relationship with the corporate media based on the reading of your threads. :flower:
     
    #3 poncho, May 13, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2015
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Corporations are people. Those people should have just as much access to the political system as anyone else. If our politicians are listening to them more than others because of money then we need to vote for those who do not. The answer is not limiting freedom it is holding our politicians accountable at the ballot box.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    A corporation is a legal fiction meant to shield the individuals in it from personal liability. That's how we came to have "to big to fail" banks. The individuals in the banks gambled foolishly and lost and we were forced to bail them out in spite of 80 - 90% of the population being against it.

    As individuals they all had the right to vote and support any candidate they wanted before citizen's united . Now they have the power to make your rights count for nothing.

    We'll see how much you believe this when it comes to voting for the next corporate backed presidential candidate.

    This is either a red herring or reverse logic or a combination of both. Over turning citizen's united would protect your freedom by limiting the power of the oligarchs to co opt the government.

    In any case politicians don't care what you think, you aren't the one filling their campaign chests with millions of dollars. Why should they listen to you? The corporations have the power to mold public opinion through the ownership and control of the mass media so why should they worry about what someone like you who hasn't got a billion dollar bank account, no lobbyists in Washington or a huge media empire thinks?
     
    #5 poncho, May 13, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2015
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    This misrepresents things. Corporations are as much people as they are a set of laws that govern business. "Legal fiction" holds no money cannot make the decision to donate money. People do.



    Such exaggerations are not helpful. Placing the blame on corporations only relieves corrupt politicians.



    Your insistence that they are corporate backed does not make it so.


    Corporations can have no influence without politicians who accept their money. Maybe just maybe the politicians who accept their money actually agree with what the corps want. Demonizing business is not the answer. Hold politicians accountable.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Okay have it your way. The people able to donate the most win.

    I'm not placing blame. Playing down the power corporations hold over the political system isn't helpful either.

    No, the evidence does. Look at who or "what" the top donors are.

    .

    That's not true at all Rev. Corporations have the power to manipulate public opinion through their ownership of the mass media and control of information.


    Yeah, like Bill and Hillary. The corporations want more money, more power and more control and so does government. So they agree, they all should have more money, more power and more control


    It's starting to sound like red herring is your favorite dish.

    If we did that Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barrack Obama and Eric holder would be in prison.

    If the law was applied equally that is. But that wouldn't bode well for "your team" now would it Rev?
     
    #7 poncho, May 13, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2015
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    You really need to learn what a red herring is.
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

    According to your "red herring" the founding fathers were guilty of "demonizing business" by voicing their fear and mistrust of corporations.

    The struggle against corporate power isn't new.

    I presume that in your view Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Dwight D. Eisenhower were all guilty of pushing "wild conspiracy theories" and "demonizing business" also. Am I correct?

    Is that the sound of crickets approaching I hear?

    Does Wall Street Call the Shots at the FBI?

    It is clear to most Americans that Wall Street’s financing of presidential and congressional campaigns is creating too many pals wearing blindfolds about epic corruption on Wall Street. The President, subject to Senate confirmation, selects the U.S. Treasury Secretary, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission – all of whom regulate Wall Street, for better or worse. Given that Wall Street collapsed the U.S. financial system in 2008 and has been perpetually charged with new crimes ever since, there is the strong suggestion that regulation isn’t strong enough.

    The President also selects the U.S. Attorney General at the Justice Department, the office that can bring criminal charges against Wall Street. But according to a January 2013 report by the PBS program, Frontline, in the years following the 2008 collapse there was no serious effort at the Justice Department to indict the miscreants. The exchange went as follows between Frontline producer and investigator, Martin Smith, and Lanny Breuer, then head of the Criminal Division at the Justice Department:

    < snip >

    There are many other reasons to question the coziness of Wall Street with law enforcement, not the least of which is the fact that it co-staffs a high-tech surveillance center with the New York Police Department in lower Manhattan and has, at least in the past, been allowed to rent uniformed cops with the power to arrest from the NYPD.

    The FBI lists its motto as: “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.” If Americans are not confident that those goals are real, crimes will cease to be reported to the FBI; corruption will gain an even greater foothold than it already has across America. For that reason alone, Congress needs to hold comprehensive hearings on the undue influence that Wall Street is wielding in our government. It could provide the basis for genuine campaign finance reform; restrictions on the revolving door; and restoration of confidence in America’s institutions, many of which are hovering at or near historic lows.

    Read More At: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/05/does-wall-street-call-the-shots-at-the-fbi/
     
    #9 poncho, May 13, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2015
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128

Share This Page

Loading...