Shared publicly  - 
"I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In my view, a corporation is not a person. In my view, a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants without disclosure on a political campaign. In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries, spend millions and millions on a campaign in order to buy elections. I do not believe that is what American democracy is suppose to be about. I do not believe that that is what the bravest of the brave from our country, fighting for democracy, fought and died to preserve." Video here:
Shawn Cormican's profile photoJosh Kohn's profile photoRaymond Clifford's profile photo张铭慧's profile photo
Well said..... Agreed.
Dan O
As they say, calling corporations "persons" is a legal fiction.
Corporations are made up of people. Therefore those in a corporation technically get two votes.
Strictly speaking, isn't it the case that corporations are "fictional persons?" In this case, clearly there is a distinction between fictional persons and real persons, and then it's no problem to say that fictional persons don't have the same rights as real persons. It's hard to see how any honest person could find this confusing or controversial.
Dan O
+Ted Lemon That would seem reasonable to me as well...
I think that it is time that all the Corporate Campaign Donor Funding must be done into specific funds controlled by a Senate Sub-Committee that must keep full records but the donor names must be with-held. So that each party will receive their funds in 7 days from those accounts.This will institute controls and it will reduce pressure of companies to donate. Just a idea. Desh
The 'corporation' is an entity certainly, but not a person. This should be plain on the surface of things. Why is it the over-educated, over-influenced refuse to keep up with common sense.
The same could be said of the unions. Yet they constantly funnel millions in contributions to the re-election campaigns of Democrats. If one type of entity should be allowed, then the other should as well.
sure but that does not make a corporation a person, any more than it makes a union a person. don't justify creating a new flaw, because another flaw already exists. I believe we are familiar with: don't cut off you nose to spite your face, yes...
+Samuel Sprague ActBlue is a donations clearinghouse. They take donations from individual voters and deliver them to political campaigns. So what you are actually seeing there is that Democrats' biggest donor is regular people like you and me.

Every single other entity anywhere near the top of that list that donates to Democrats is a union of some kind. It's never been a secret that the unions favor Democrats over Republicans, nor should it be. However, they really aren't getting much bang for their donation buck, since the Democratic party as a whole has generally failed to protect the interests of their members.

It's worth noting, however, that our senator, Bernie Sanders, is an independent, not a Democrat.
hay i think i have seen u before but then i dont
+Ariel Garcia, under the law corporations are "fictitious persons." It's true that this isn't the same as them being real persons, but it's why the word "person" is used in this context. So it's no more correct, under the law, to say that corporations aren't persons than it is to say that they are persons. If you leave out the "fictitious" distinction, it's completely misleading. This is, essentially, what the court did in Citizens United, although they justified it on the basis that corporations are collections of people, not on the basis that a fictitious person is equivalent to a real person.
+Ted Lemon by your own logic fictional persons should therefore get fictional rights.....but you conveniently skipped over that direct logical connection. You started out with establishing a parallel and then with slight of hand slipped in the cross pollination of fictional versus real.
I should say that it's a little frustrating to me that Senator Sanders here says "a corporation is not a person" when it would be so much more clear to say "a corporation is not a real person." I think there's an intention to keep the tagline as simple and direct as possible, but I think this tagline is too simple, and loses meaning as a consequence.
+Paul Mason, you are correct that fictional persons should get fictional rights, and indeed under the law they do. However, what they do not get is the same rights. Corporations cannot vote in elections. To me this clearly delineates the distinction between fictional persons and real persons.

If you really think that corporations should get to participate in elections in the same way that people do, then you would necessarily have to argue that corporations ought to be allowed to vote. Are you in fact making that argument?
Why will no one step beyond the Democrat versus Republican rhetoric ? Corporate donations = corporate influence in deregulation and/or gov't contracts. Democrats and Republicans have both been guilty of corruption in regards to gov't contracts. The Republicans however, by virtue of the very ideology it is based on, is more closely associated with corrupt influence of deregulation: Enron, Wall Street, Oil drilling safety standards, etc. Corruption within Democrat circles is more on an individual case-by-case basis. Corruption among Republicans is systemic and essentially legalized organized crime by way of collusion.
+Samuel Sprague, then it seems to me that you are arguing that nobody should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, since doing so would tend to influence the winner. This would be a reasonable position to take, except that I think you would agree that a person who is campaigning for office would him- or herself have to spend their own money on the campaign if they couldn't get any contributions at all.

This of course would mean that rich people would always have an advantage over poor people in any election.

So this is why it makes a certain amount of sense to allow, but limit, campaign contributions.
+Paul Mason, isn't that exactly what Bernie Sanders is doing? He's proposing that we establish a constitutional amendment saying that corporations do not have the same rights as people with regard to participation in elections. Where is he saying that this should only apply to corporations that donate to Republicans?
well i agree, a company can not vote and shouldn't be treated as voters, its really amazing how we took power from the people and put it in corporations hands. We are no longer a democracy
+Ted Lemon Corporations getting to vote once every 4 years in an election is irrelevant. Corporations get to vote every day congress is in session with lobby money. They have the power to meet directly with representatives and make demands. They are shaping day to day policy decisions. It doesn't matter who we vote in.
Has Mr. Saunders ever been right about anything since he was Mayor?
we can discuss that corporations are "something" but we cannot discuss that corporations are people. otherwise they would have been called people and not called corporations in the first place.

corporations are the unionization of wealth. they are conceptualization of a "wealth union". so they —and all their functions— should fall under the purview of the department of labor.
+Matt Chambers, the reason I mention corporations voting is that they don't have a right to vote. If they don't have a right to vote, clearly they do not have the same rights as citizens. So it's no contradiction to say that neither do they have a right, as you say, to show up and lobby Congress in the way that you describe.

There is one thing that you miss, though. That is that the reason Congress can be so effectively lobbied is precisely that corporations do have a great deal of control over the outcome of elections. If they did not, then they could lobby, but they would not have a substantially louder voice than the people.

So it is the corporate money in politics that is the horse, and the corporate lobbying that is the cart being drawn by it, not vice versa.
Demand that corporations show a valid birth certificate to prove that they're natural-born citizens!
Corporations were created to allow people to form a business entity (different from a ":person") and avoid risking themselves personally. The ultimate is when a corporation declares bankruptcy and the shareholders personal wealth is protected from creditors. This is necessary for free enterprise to work. But the founders recognized the potential for abuse and they tried to create a balance whereby the concept of a corporation does more good (free enterprise, taxes, employment) than bad (working conditions, bankruptcy, etc). With this court ruling, it appears they fundamentally shifted this equation. It seems clear to many reasonable people that these Super Pacs do more harm to society than good. The state of Montana is pushing back and it is possible this decision will be revisited. Let's hope saner minds prevail.
I'll believe a corporation is a person the day Texas executes one.
The constitution guarantees a republican form of government. In the beginning of our country, white, male landowners were the ones who voted and controlled government. After fighting to recognize the right to vote for every citizen above 18, less than 60% of those eligible to vote actually do so in the general election.
That isn't democracy. How can you save something that never really existed?
And I actually agree with Bernie Sanders on something and, no, I am not a communist!
+Chris Doubleday there is no such thing as a "free" market. markets require a HEAVY infrastructure of courts and society just to maintain them and keep them viable.
Corporations are NOT people, they are entities with a collection of people. Furthermore, some (many) corporations are able to wield much more power and pull and any single individual ever could. +Michael Cooke There are many businesses that ARE NOT corporations. Matter of fact, more people in the US are employed by small (non-corporation) businesses! YOU PLEASE STOP THE BS!
Corporations comprise people, +Michael Cooke. At issue is whether a corporation is a person. Your statement exemplifies the logical fallacy of straw-man argument. It is thus completely specious and irrelevant.
+michael cooke. We do want the bullshit to stop. Yes, corporations are a group of people.
The bullshit begins when corporations gain all the rights as individual people and have none of the liabilities or responsibilities.
If the supreme court holds shell responsible for the murders in Nigeria, it will show that the bullshit has stopped
There is at least one good man in the senate of the United States. So many others should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
+Imran Owais Kazmi Yes, we can change it! Did Ghandi defeat the mighty British Empire? WE CAN CHANGE IT, JUST IMAGINE IT!
+Ted Lemon Ultimately your argument to support a corporation as being a person is a conflict of interest. It only serves to your vested interest to receive revenue and translate that into influence. Can a handgun manufacturer be held as an accomplice to a murder ? No. What other purpose in application is there for making of such a product ? However if a person selling the handgun is proven that it was for the explicit purpose of killing an individual, then that person can be held accountable as an accomplice by way of facilitation. The manufacturer cannot. Therefore the corporation is being selectively defined as a person for a specific function. You are facilitating collusion. The Republican party dangles the 'American Dream' in front of the public and then uses fear mongering against any opposition as the scapegoat for why they haven't achieved it yet. Today's political system is the simple evolution of the Military Industrial Complex, that was propogated using fear mongering during the Cold War. Now we see new relationships established in other industries: Gov't <--> Medical/Pharmaceutical <--> Insurance......or Gov't <--> Oil/Energy. It's the same fascade played out and driven by one of the basic fundamental survival instincts of all humans: greed --> materialism/power --> gov't influence --> more profit.....and all under the banner of "freedom" and "capitalism". When will someone step forward and finally reveal that the emperor has no clothes.
in my opinion i think Ron Paul should be the president. Even though i cant vote yet i think he should still be the president. I wish i was old enough. Paul is awesome!!! Don't you think???
Run for President! Run for President!
Your one of the few good politicians left. 
I think that only individual people should be allowed to contribute. That means no corporations, no unions, no PACs, no lobbyists. Unions are no better than corporations. Of course if unions, lobbyists and corporations can no longer contribute most politicians wouldn't run since the payola would disappear.
+Imran Owais Kazmi yes it can be changed !!! Who would have thought that we'd see the uprisings in the arab world that have taken place over the past year or more ? The challenge is communicating the truth. Consider that oppression is significantly dependent upon propaganda to begin with. Take for example the resistance during the last election in Iran. For decades the Iranian people have been spoon fed what to believe about the 'evil' west. However, I believe two conditions have been in place that have given the people a reason to question this indoctrination: 1) the existence of communication facilitated by the Internet. As some people do emigrate to western civilizations they then communicate the truth back to their families still at home in Iran. This completely contradicts the fundamentalism being spewed every day. 2) a black man, with a Muslim father becoming president of the USA....I firmly believe this represents a symbol of hope to people around the world that anything is truly possible. For the first time in decades the US government stayed more or less quiet about the activities that took place within Iran (at that time). No saber rattling that could then be manipulated as more propaganda within Iran. Instead the Iranian government was forced to act on their own and reveal the truth about themselves. The same has happened more or less throughout the "Arab Spring" uprisings. Because of the facilitation of global communication, and a new symbol of hope, even if it is only perception, oppression across the globe is being challenged perhaps more so than ever before.
We just need to remember The USA was founded as a bottom up indigenous power, not a Top down Surrogate power. Our Nations founders made sure that WE the people have ALL THE POWER and WE MAKE THE RULES that helps are families and country. So why have we let our Country become a Top down Surrogate power? WE the people are ALL ON THE SAME SIDE and we just have to know what power are founders gave us. We are not fools and we need to know what are rights are! "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and JUSTICE FOR ALL! God bless!
short & sweet (maybe) corporations exist for the purpose of law. sue a person you receive everything. Sue a corporation is limited!
we know that those of power...
have character testing abilities...
our common hopes...
if we falter???
that we get back up and Finnish the race!!!
+Paul Mason, if you think I support corporations having the same rights as natural persons, you haven't been reading what I've been writing. I agree with Senator Sanders here 100%. The reason I bring up the distinction between natural persons and fictitious persons is that propagandists in favor of corporate personhood often deliberately confuse the two concepts as if they were one and the same.
john m
bless you Bernie Sanders
Saving American Democracy Amendment
I support you.
A corporation is owned by a person. Both the corporation and the human owner pay taxes. Those taxes pay your salary. You dumb ass.
Dems hate corporations because they can donate to the opposing party. This is his whole flawed reality.
Bernie Sanders is not a democrat
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Google+! Good to see you here..
Bernie for Prez...Make a nice Independent run...Got my vote!
There is a difference between a natural person (specifically one born on U.S. soil) and a legal person. A corporation is a group of people who have been deemed a single entity, a legal person, given some rights of natural persons.
Natural persons have inalienable rights, they cannot be justly given or taken away by anyone else. Legal people have no inalienable rights. Their rights are awarded to them by the government.
If this was a democracy, the people of the U.S. would decide what rights a corporation has and what rights they are not allowed.
Since the U.S. is a republic, that allows corporations to buy lawmakers so that they can be awarded rights that would give them an advantage over natural persons. They also pay lawmakers to make them immune from the consequences of illegal activity.
A corporation, as a legal person, cannot be imprisoned. It can not be sentenced to the death penalty.
It's implicit in the name LLC. Limited Liability company. They are not held to the same liabilities as natural persons
Personhood is wholly a legal/philosophical term. Lawmakers can create legislation to deem anything a 'person'. This is the fight we see with animal rights and abortion.

The greater point is, how can we erase corruption from our government? The answer, I think, is to encourage every citizen of this country to participate in lawmaking. That means that everyone would exercise their first amendment rights on a regular basis. That means every citizen with the right to vote would vote on every issue, in every election.
WE can't wait until an election year to care about laws. We have to care every day.
Politicians, locally and nationally, are making decisions that affect every citizen. Those decisions are influenced by the a small percentage of people because they spend their money and lobby for their interests. They do that while we just sit and watch it happen.
We can't have democracy if we don't practice democracy.
But please make sure you understand this, we live in a "REPUBLIC"
I have voted for Bernie Sanders in every election he has run in! Even when he was elected Mayor of Burlington VT.! He is a true politician of the people! Please take note of the Committee's that he is the head of and what actions he has initiated to make the wrongs right? You will find him on You Tube without any trouble at all!
+Wayne Williams by calling others names, you lower your perceived level of intelligence and paint yourself in a terrible light.
OK, tommorow all members of an corporation, which donate money to a political campaign, should vote as one person - one vote?!
S Jackson is right, Bernie is a registered Communist!
And may be a man corporation can marry a woman corporation (or sorry other man corporation) and get children?!
Corporations certainly don't act like respectable citizens, they shouldn't have more of a vote than the worst scum imaginable.
Ugh...Bernie Sanders is a independent.
So, what's next? or 100+ years the Court has put forth corporate person-hood in contradiction to the intent of the framers (and in alignment with wealth friends, benefactors and associates). Do we amend the Constitution, start revoking corporate charters for violation of the law?
If one company's actions kill another company, should the first company be held liable for capital murder? This is but one of many ways that the "corporations are people" concept fails the basic test of logic.
The very act of declaring that corporations be treated as people is in itself representative of improper influence of government. Motive ?: To pave the way to make it even easier to effect external influence over government policy.

If you want absolute capitalism with zero regulation, then move to Somalia. You'll be begging for a little regulation PDQ!
Well said Nathan!!!

There is no liberty when there is profit involved.
So if a corporation is a person can you send a corporation to jail/prison for breaking a law?
+Bernie Sanders: I'm all for it. Any suggestions beyond just voting or signing petitions for how the American people can support this sort of amendment?
We don't need the First Amendment to have the right to free speech (if you think the bill of rights is a list of the ten things people are allowed to do in America, you're actually wrong on this point and Lee Doren has a lesson for you: ). In fact, in order to force people to stop spending money on campaigns, the constitution would need to have mentioned a government power that allowed for such force.

If Sanders wants a new power given to the federal government, he should suggest a constitutional amendment: "Congress shall enact such laws as it deems necessary to prevent people, acting as corporations, from spending too much money on elections" or some such amendment.
No. They easily pass laws of their choosing but only pay fines if found to have violated one. The fines are usually a fraction of the profit made from violating any given law, so it is only considered a minimal risk or an anticipated cost of doing business.
Corporations are not people. Soylent Green is, however.
You know...This wouldn't be a problem if people knew how to think critically and didn't automatically believe everything they see in the media.
I will believe corporations are people, when they arrest one and put it in jail.
My understanding of the entire reason for incorporating, and operating a corporation, is to NOT BE A PERSON under the law. Perhaps that is my problem, I am too simple minded to be a lawyer.
My God,I just listened to a brave&true American speak in Mr. Bernie Sanders! I to am an American,even tho i never served in military i salute you,i would vote for you at any political level sought,thank you so much ! I think, God has already Blessed You. 
did you know that Montana is the only state standing against this decision to allow corporations to contribute without limits?
At some point there has to be an actual list of demands from Americans of all races and walks of life. Unfortunately even if there was a perfect list of demands supported by the perfect mix of people, until those people are willing to die for those ideas. Now this may sound extreme but think about it do you really believe that one of these greedy bastards that we elect will actually give up anything that benefits them and there family without a fight? HELL NO!!!

We have created a government that we can no longer control, our own personal Frankenstein. Soon Ron Paul will begin to make sense among the populous, when that happens God help us ... wait I don't believe in god so I guess I will just buy guns
The idea that an entity blessed with eternal life is a "person" should frighten and instill anger in all Citizens of the Earth. It is ludicrous that these eternal machinations are being considered "people", we should all be slapped awake if we let this continue.
Whichever side of the fence you're on politically, as long as elections (and the behavior of our elected officials) can be bought, our democracy will continue to degrade. The outcome will not be sustainable, or pretty.
I concur! That is not the democracy many have fought to defend. That is not democracy period. Corporations are not the voice of the people but that of special interest and money.
The Supreme Court lost any credibility it had when it ruled in favor of "Citizens United". What a wonderful joke. The name itself is misleading and actually quite the opposite of what it proposes in it's title. Life is pretty funny I love how garbage is sprayed to look nice and neat.
You lost any credibility when you quoted bernie sanders. He's a socialist loser and so are you.
Until you have Proof of God, those relying on not being able to prove his existence will continue to do what they do.
So ....Proof of God and a cure for Cancer to substantiate the Statement .
But read the Record (in conjunction with it) 
Isn't this discussion more about free speech than if corporations are people? How do you limit the speech of people that work for corporations differently than unions out other groups of people?
I see a potential flaw. If a corporation is not a person then the laws that are designed to protect people from being wronged by other people might no longer apply. That could have disastrous consequences on legal cases because corporations would gain the upper hand against common people. Basically by a corporation being considered 'not a person' doesn't that mean that they would not have to obey the laws that restrict the actions of American people? Perhaps I am wrong, but what do all you think?
Senator....You my man are one of my HEROES!!...
Here's the problem I have with citizens united.
A corporation is a legal entity. It is created by law. The rights it has are created by law. If McCain Feingold says that they are not allowed to spend during election seasons, then that's that.
I don' t think the supreme court has the jurisdiction to give a corporation natural rights. Again, corporations don't have any rights that legislation didn't give them
EXCELLENTLY SAID Senator! How can anything you say be disputed by a rationally thinking, unbiased person. For those who disagree - maybe you can explain - specifically, what are the the logical advantages of allowing NO tranparancy and NO disclosure?
Actually, per the CIA, the USA is a constitution based federal republic (with a democratic tradition)
I think Bill Moyers said it best when he said 'I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.'
The Constitution was framed to protect the individual against oppression. So, no, corporations do not have an inherent right to free speech. That's for individual natural people. The decision to treat corporations as real people shows hatred for the First Amendment, +Kary Krismer, and everything it stands for.
The NYT is a corporation. If government can prevent corporations from making political speech,then it can prevent the NYT from making political speech.

What would fix this is bringing back the fairness doctrine where media has to provide equal time at zero cost for opposing viewpoints.

Because broadcasts use public airwaves under license, the conditions of that license can require that equal time be granted.

Cable is a regulated monopoly, so under the terms of the monopoly cable stations can be required to provide equal time too.
So outlaw union corporate donations and lobbying and the brides happen in different back rooms. Anyone that believes outlawing something somehow prevents it from happening must have fell off the truck yesterday.

We have a giant court system to address things that happen that were outlawed.
+Jonathan Orosco And were those things legal, they would happen a lot more often. Yes, there are jerks that disobey sensible laws, and a lot of the time they end up in jail. There are also plenty of people who obey sensible laws, and even some people who would do some sketchy things if they were legal but not if they're not. Laws work.
Funny, you think corporations shouldn't be muzeled, but you support strong governmental regulation saying they need to represent all viewpoints equally. People are hilarious when they are contradictory and use circular logic.
America is an Oligarchy which pretends to be a Democracy when it should be a Republic.
It is a sad time when the election is won by whom has the most money in their campaigns.
why don't post the movetoamend website link and spread more awareness about this issue and about acta bill issue that stand to gain more control of the internet from the public.
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza...
Have it so there's a limit of thousands on both corporations and individuals.
+Laura E. While a corporation is made up of people, those people only get one vote. Being employed, corporation or not, doesn't change the number of votes a person is allowed to cast in an election. And corporations are not allowed to vote, just donate money to a campaign or cause, or exercise free speech and press.
You are correct. How to get this turned around back right?
It's rare that I agree with every single word in a political speech. In this case I agree with every single word. Thank you Senator Sanders!
Americans don't get to elect anyone with their votes, elections are bought. Only
now it is legal. Sic. Things are nothing but a joke in this country when it comes to politics today. And thinking anything different than what our "Great Leaders" think will soon be dangerous. Right, Nancy? "We shall see What is in the Bill, after we Pass the Bill".
What a JOKE!!!!! The great United States of Bullsh_t.
Senator Sanders is right. This Citizen United ruling by the Supreme Court is an abomination.
If corporations are legally people too than I can think of a good handful that should be apprehended and arrested immediately!
Do they have the right to remain silent too, to be apprehended and arrested, for committing heinous crimes against the American people, gambling our economy away etc? And if so what happens to all employed by that "person" (i.e. corporation)? Regardless of your political affiliation this should rattle you in the least.
So "in your view", you don't like freedom and would prefer it to be restricted greatly. And really for no stated reason except that you don't like it. Huh. Well... like it then? Be less dumb?
By all means Senator, then quit taxing them!
"David Adams - By all means Senator, then quit taxing them!" ... Well said sir.
I think you may be confused. They don't pay the same tax (income tax), they pay corporate tax. Different rate, different rules. Different thing.

Surely you're not a hyper-republican with a unicorn like belief that the country can/should run with no government and no taxation. 
I personally wish to incorporate myself so that I can have automatic weapons for security!!! Seriously, incorporation makes life comparable to having cheat codes in video games! Infinite money/health/weapons cheat enabled!
+Jim Clark What would make our system more democratic would be to stop allowing rich people and corporations such loud megaphones that they drown the rest of us all out.
+S Jackson Okay, so I will stand corrected on this one. He is officially Independent - Democratic Socialist. At one point in time, he was a registered Communist. Please forgive my mis-statement.
+Dave Zupan cite your sources on that "at one point" bit too; I doubt that's true.
Who cares what label you put on a person? Do you agree with Senator Sanders or not? If you agree, why bother labeling him? If you disagree, why not talk about the substance of your disagreement instead of labeling him? The only reason to resort to labeling is that you have no argument.
In this case I do agree with Senator Sanders.

For the record, I used to work for a Democrat Congressman and worked in the Clinton White House.
For the righteous who desperately cling to the argument that corporations are made up of people too, then what is the argument for the corporate donations to remain confidential ? Why is this necessary ? What is the motive ? The people defending this argument are the same people benefiting from the corporate contributions in the first place.

It is a fact that messages in the media sways voters.
It is fact that there is a finite amount of media resources.
It is a fact that these resources can be bought.
It is therefore only logical that no one entity or collective with the means be permitted to establish an effective monopoly over the media. Allowing corporations this opportunity is wrong.
By association of purchasing advertising time in the media, the current polarization and disproportionate distribution of wealth correlates to an equally disproportionate amount of influence which is completely counter to what a democracy is supposed to be.

When corporations in a capitalist market are willing to contribute millions of dollars, it is by logical extension of the very definition capitalism that this contribution is purely an investment for the sole purpose of generating more profit.

Allowing this makes the US democracy a facade.

Did you learn nothing from the Enron scandal ?
Have you learned nothing from the real estate collapse in 2008 ?
Well said Senator +Bernie Sanders I still can't believe that this passed through the US Supreme Court and barely anyone in the country is aware of this.

To think that Exxon Mobile, as 12/31/2011, had 12.5 billion cash in the bank that it could use to influence politics is astounding. Oh and Exxon generates about $55 billion in operating cash each year as well.

According to Politico, the total cost of the 2008 Election was 5.3 billion (

So one corporation in America could spend more than the entire 2008 Election without disclosure. This is influence and buying an election and is wrong.
In a Nutshell! The word NUT can have multiple applications here! Our system is broken and badly in need of a fix!
Add a comment...