514
Billionaires used to build libraries and hospital wings, now they just buy politicians.
(lemmy.today)
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
514 points (98.7% liked)
Work Reform
17005 readers
1132 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can somebody please tell me what that Citizens United ruling is all about ?
( Brit in Australia )
Citizens United is a Conservative nonprofit but people talking about it are usually referring to the court case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
AU Accessibility
ƆƎℲ‾˙ʌ‾pǝʇᴉu∩‾suǝzᴉʇᴉƆ/ᴉʞᴉʍ/ƃɹo˙ɐᴉpǝdᴉʞᴉʍ˙uǝ//:sdʇʇɥ
sǝʇɐpᴉpuɐɔ lɐɔᴉʇᴉlod uǝsoɥɔ ɹᴉǝɥʇ ʇɹoddns oʇ ʎǝuoɯ ɟo sʇunoɯɐ pǝʇᴉɯᴉlun puǝds oʇ ɯǝɥʇ ƃuᴉʍollɐ ʎq ɹǝʍod lɐɔᴉʇᴉlod ǝʇɐuoᴉʇɹodoɹdsᴉp plǝᴉʍ oʇ suoᴉʇɐɹodɹoɔ ǝƃɹɐl ƃuᴉʍollɐ <
˙ǝsɐɔ ʇɹnoɔ ǝɥʇ oʇ ƃuᴉɹɹǝɟǝɹ ʎllɐnsn ǝɹɐ ʇᴉ ʇnoqɐ ƃuᴉʞlɐʇ ǝldoǝd ʇnq ʇᴉɟoɹduou ǝʌᴉʇɐʌɹǝsuoƆ ɐ sᴉ pǝʇᴉu∩ suǝzᴉʇᴉƆ
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court about campaign finance law, in which the Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and labor unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. All Democratic-appointed justices dissented.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
I am not a lawyer but as I understand the issue the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money = speech, and since there is no point at which an authority can say "You've spoken long enough", there is no point at which an authority can say "You've spent enough." In public city council meetings people do get arrested if they speak considerably longer than the allowed time limit.
Just to add, there are still limits in place that prevent corporations from giving money directly to political campaigns or candidates, but there's nothing that prevents corporations from telling people who to vote for or spending millions on ad campaigns in support of their preferred candidate.
So a given candidate's campaign may raise only a modest sum, but they don't need a lot of money to run ads when Megacorp A is willing to spend $1 billion on their own series of commercials to get them elected. And if that politician happens to provide favorable treatment to the corporation after they win, then it's seen as an investment worth spending.
CU wasnt the first time SCOTUS ruled in favor of corporations being human, the first was not long after the 14th amendment
Speech = Free: People have the right to say what they want. You can't keep a person from talking.
Spending = Speech: People have the right to spend money about political issues. You can't keep a person from spending.
...
Basically, Citizens United says that for-profit companies can't be restricted from political activities. They are free to buy elections.
Oh shit right thanks. Yeah that's simply wrong. The absolute minority controlling isn't what voting is about, as we all know.
Get that "let them eat cake" era back and sort that whole damn mess out. What a corrupt entire system.
Yeah, what they should have said is that corporate personhood is a legal fiction. Corporations exist solely for purposes of legally distinguishing the conduct of business from the actions of individual shareholders of that business.
Corporations exist solely to conduct commerce. Any "speech" by a corporation is an act of commerce, and commerce is well within the regulatory authority of Congress.
But that would be reasonable.
Which has, itself, not worked out so good. Shareholders and managers hiding behind the corporate veil have done irreparable harm.
The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim's family takes your house in compensation.
What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership, absent any remnant of the "corporate veil". Liability flows from your partner through the partnership and back to you. It is the corporate veil that isolates the company from the personal actions of its employees, and the employees from the business operations of the company.
There's a little more nuance.
That doesn't logically follow at all.
You do not have claim on someone's house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation.