Pros and cons of Citizens United.

I get the feeling that your use of the word "unfairly" reflects a definition that is rife with personal feelings? Those rich people and corporations might think it unfair for Joe Q. WorkingStiff to have a greater say in an election than what his/her paycheck reflects. If it wasn't for men risking their wealth to underwrite (aka, insure) the ships coming to the New World, we might have a very different continent that many would not care for. And, others would. So, the deciding factor is money. Money was not invented just to go shopping for personal mundane needs, or pay for entertainment, etc.

The question is how much influence should money have on democratic elections in a free society. Our government is said to "of the people, by the people and for the people". I don't think this has anything to do with investment and exploration (i.e. sending ships to the new world.).

In my opinion the danger of Citizens United is that it allows people with lots of money to have much greater political influence than the rest of us. Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe wealthy people are more suited to choose the government than the rest of us.

I disagree with this idea. But, let's at least get the question straight.

So, you're correct. My connotation re unfair does mean that rich people shouldn't be able to afford more support of their preferred candidate than your basically average Joe.

Thanks for speaking. Say more if you like.

This country is based on money. Remember that there is a segment of the Protestant community that believes that working hard, and acquiring wealth, is the Lord's sign that one will achieve Salvation. The country was founded by the Calvinist work ethic. Max Weber's book, Protestantism and the Rise of Capitalism says that the two go together. Fairness for the poor might be a bit more of Catholic schtick? And, as Zero Mostel said in the original movie version of The Producers, "Money is honey." I do not begrudge anyone having wealth and power. I am just grateful for living in their country.

I think many of us disagree with the idea that the country belongs to them rather than to all of us.

A major departure from foofie's belief system. Damn straight.

I don't begrudge them the lifestyle they've earned, until they think this place belongs more to them than to me.

Pros and cons of Citizens United

pro - if people band together they might be able to accomplish things

cons - you might find yourself surrounded by citizens

I guess I'm "earnest" and old-fashioned, but this country isn't based on money to me.

I declare my equality. I will give up the front seat due to my charity, but try to take it from me and you have a fight on your hands.

I guess CU is what I thought it was.

And it will have to go.

The concept I am comfortable with includes the thinking that some of us have more vested, and invested, in this country continuing to have a capitalistic system that includes the right to one's property and the influence that wealth affords.

Therefore, I believe that an argument can be made, based on ethics, that the wealthy have every right to steer this proverbial ship (of state). If one looks at the baby headstones in old cemeteries, one might realize that those that came here before the Industrial Revolution, saw many within a family have a short life, dying of diseases/fevers that we do not have to deal with. Simply put, my family, and others that came in the latter half of the nineteenth century, came to a country where all the proverbial "heavy lifting" was already done by other demographics, so they could live a life that was better than the world in Europe. Remember, this country was often populated by those who were the losers in the European social class system. So now 165 or so years later, some of their descendants have decided that they should be EQUAL in influence to those who struggled two-hundred years earlier, than their relatives' arrival, so this country could be an alternative to the poverty for many in Europe?

Excuse me for trying to know my place in a society that affords opportunity to those that can do. And, as Woody Allen said, those that can't do, teach. And those that can't teach, teach gym.

Also, notice the progression of wanting unearned influence. Once upon a time, one had to own property/land to have a vote. Well, now non-propertied citizens can vote. And now I see an attempt to level the playing field, by making wealth not a criteria for one's influence, regardless if one can vote. And, in my opinion, some people that vote just look upon reading as a chore, just like many considered algebra homework (reading is my criterion for the willingness to think). Does anyone vote on what will make this country remain a decent nation, or just feather their own nests, so to speak?