|
Post by warrenfirehouse on May 11, 2016 9:38:35 GMT -6
It's a matter of law enforcement, ISRC codes exist, so does "shazaam", it identifies music, so those types of code/algo's could protect creators if laws were enforced, and meant to be followed by the monied, it seems the American dream is just that anymore, a dream, because you have to be fucking asleep to believe it! Having opportunity fosters hope, taking away opportunity kills hope, a hopeless population gives rise to demagoguery, and can turn dangerous real quick, just sayin..... Haha no one hits the nail on the head as square as carlin used to. Got a pencil? Get the fuck in there!
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 11, 2016 10:20:05 GMT -6
you know when you bounce down a mp3 from your session and you don't include any information about yourself in the metadata? and the resulting file is just pure audio data with no means of identifying who owns it (other than shazam)? If you buy music on iTunes nowadays, you might have noticed that they stopped distributing m4p's and went back to m4a's, which can be opened on any computer. they removed the DRM protection because everyone complained about not being able to play the music they bought on their android/Windows device or burn it to a mp3(data) CD to play it on their car stereo that doesn't have an AUX or USB input. too bad, i tunes needs to post... "hey cheap fuck, for 99 cents, you can only play this on 1 device!", a fucking candybar that you shit out the next day is $2! A song that you listen to over and over for a life time is 99 cents? whaaaaaaaaa?
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on May 11, 2016 10:34:42 GMT -6
I am with tony here. Google says that they "do the right thing". I think they have a different opinion on "right".
If you run a business and you need oil for example - you pay for it. Google is not paying a single cent at least in Germany they - yet have no contract signed.
And if they pay they pay laughable cents.
If I remember right on a YT ad you have a ø CPC rate by 0,012 Cent.
A friend of mine had 600000 views with reviewing a China Stratocaster. Google paid him ø 200 Dollars??
0,012 Cent vs. 0,000333333 Cent?
Google gives you 1/36 of what they get.
Its pure greed and the best investment they have ever made. You don't have to pay for content and you make billions with a few developers and a few servers.
It has always been the basic rule of capitalism - you pay for things which make your business run. That is the idea of money - traveling around form one person to the next.
But big companies like google, or the Bangsters, believe that they deserve for their needs socialism. For the people there are still the old rule - capitalism....
That is not what the idea of capitalism is about. Capitalism is at least, in my book, the chance of a fair (NEW) DEAL.
|
|
|
Post by jdc on May 12, 2016 8:29:03 GMT -6
Haha no one hits the nail on the head as square as carlin used to. Got a pencil? Get the fuck in there! Haha I also love that a YouTube clip gets posted in a thread railing against YouTube, great irony.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 12, 2016 8:51:00 GMT -6
There are solutions out there, but it would take a gigantic concerted effort. There has been a strong anti-union sentiment growing in the US. This serves to keep power and money in a few hands. Only when we figure out how to bring together all the recording artists, like AFTRA, the musicians union, and all the engineering unions who participate in creating content to form a collective bargaining entity will we stand a chance.
If we really want to make America great again, we have to make the unions great again.
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on May 12, 2016 8:54:55 GMT -6
You think capitalism is fair? Its a step below anarchy actually. Its only fair to those that have the privilege of being born in the right region, family, and most often race and most importantly in a first world country. To those not born with these accidental attributes its a fucking bulldozer. "Capitalism leads to anarchy, Communism leads to fascism. " -Vonneget Im not hear to preach some anarcho-syndicalist agenda. I do alright in our capitalist society. But never did I ever think it was fair. I just happen to be born on the winning side and roll with it. For now.
I highly doubt google would invest a penny into protecting artist royalties. Its been its foundation to do the direct opposite since its conception. Like I said I have no solution but am eagerly reading and waiting for one.
|
|
|
Post by levon on May 12, 2016 9:11:09 GMT -6
you know when you bounce down a mp3 from your session and you don't include any information about yourself in the metadata? and the resulting file is just pure audio data with no means of identifying who owns it (other than shazam)? If you buy music on iTunes nowadays, you might have noticed that they stopped distributing m4p's and went back to m4a's, which can be opened on any computer. they removed the DRM protection because everyone complained about not being able to play the music they bought on their android/Windows device or burn it to a mp3(data) CD to play it on their car stereo that doesn't have an AUX or USB input. too bad, i tunes needs to post... "hey cheap fuck, for 99 cents, you can only play this on 1 device!", a fucking candybar that you shit out the next day is $2! A song that you listen to over and over for a life time is 99 cents? whaaaaaaaaa? Why can't I give you 10 thumbs-up for this?
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 12, 2016 9:46:43 GMT -6
Like I said I have no solution but am eagerly reading and waiting for one. Repealing Citizen United would be a good start. The Tech Sector has spent almost a billion dollars in political contributions since 2008. How much clout would they have if they could not influence our politicians at all financially? In 2008 Romney and Obama spent 1 Billion each on their political campaigns. What if they could not spend a dime and television, radio and the internet and all three were mandated to supply free access to a number of debates determined by the political parties? Like all oligarchies it takes time for the oligarchy to go too far. I think the Sanders/Trump phenomenon is proof that we're getting closer to a reckoning.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 12, 2016 10:25:58 GMT -6
Haha no one hits the nail on the head as square as carlin used to. Got a pencil? Get the fuck in there! Haha I also love that a YouTube clip gets posted in a thread railing against YouTube, great irony. At least George (his estate) will be getting 0.000333333 cents from Google for each and every view of the clip made by everyone here... won't he?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 12, 2016 10:32:40 GMT -6
Professor Carroll Quigley...
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on May 12, 2016 13:39:58 GMT -6
My studio in Burlington vt did very well and gave me opportunities to meet and see some really great people. I never thought in a million years Sanders would be where he is. I can only hope there's a change. A shift in consciousness. Caring about your fellow human and giving a little extra to help the one that's down out. I've been down before and fortunately others helped me. I see soooo many hateful and fearful people i just don't see thst ever really coming to fruition though. I'm rambling but to the point i don't see anyway independent unique artist can survive. I'm gonna keep going cause i have no choice (I'll die making art) but I'm not very optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 13, 2016 7:53:11 GMT -6
I had a ringside seat to the music industry completely blowing it.
For openers they believed tech industry propaganda that they were up against student hackers as opposed to the Sand Hill Road investment banksters and failed to invest enough money in lawyers. Then, in an effort to prevent a public relations meltdown, they made the mistake of suing people who were uploading vast amounts of music rather than having them prosecuted as criminals. As a result of wimping out, they still got the bad publicity but not any deterrent because Intel's EFF would gladly pay for people's legal defense of civil lawsuits as a means of setting favorable precedents.
I watched all this go down in utter horror.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 13, 2016 8:24:44 GMT -6
...... EFF would gladly pay for people's legal defense of civil lawsuits as a means of setting favorable precedents. Here is EEF's solution. Note that paying for music is "voluntary" in this freedom loving "sharing" model. I think there should be a voluntary system for me to do the right thing while trying to decide whether to buy my computer or steal it. Wonder how well that would go down with Silicon Valley? What a fucking bunch of hypocritical assholes. "There is a better way. EFF advocates a voluntary collective licensing regime as a mechanism that would fairly compensate artists and rightsholders for P2P file sharing.134 The demand is there: for example, a recent survey showed 80% of teens are interested in a good legal P2P solution.135 The concept is simple: the music industry forms one or more collecting societies, which then offers file sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway—share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer—without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rightsholders based on the popularity of their music. In exchange, file sharing music fans who pay (or have their ISP or software provider or other intermediary pay on their behalf) will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. Universities, for example, could obtain blanket licenses for their campus, solving problems with copyright holders and ensuring freedom of access in our nation's centers of innovation.136 The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in P2P software, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom for fans to upload what they care about, the deeper the catalog. This model is currently being explored by some of the major labels.137 This has been successfully done before. For decades, "collecting societies" like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have been collecting fees from radio stations, performance venues, bars and restaurants. Once the fee is paid, these establishments are entitled to play whatever music they like, from whatever source, as often as they like. Music fans today deserve the same opportunity to pay a fee for the freedom to download the music they love. Some lawsuits would still be necessary, the same way that spot checks on the subway are necessary in cities that rely on an "honor system" for mass transit. But the lawsuits will no longer be aimed at singling out music fans for multi-thousand dollar punishments in order to "make an example" of them. They will no longer be intended to drive fans into the arms of inferior alternatives. Instead, the system would reinforce the rule of law— by giving fans the chance to pay a small monthly fee for P2P file sharing, a voluntary collection system creates a way for fans to "do the right thing" along with a realistic chance that the majority will actually be able to live up to the letter of the law.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 13, 2016 8:39:42 GMT -6
Capitalism, communism and socialism are just different flavors of industrialism which is the real oppressor. All three could be really corrupt or a paradise. One can never be the solution to the corruption of another. An old San Francisco sage once said "The problem with the capitalists and communists is that they are both absolutely right about what's wrong with the other!"
In real free market capitalism, there can be no limitations on liability. Corporations and insurance would both be illegal. Corporate hustlers are quick to claim the freedom in capitalism but completely ignore the responsibilities that go with that freedom for it to actually be either capitalism or fair.
What we have is corrupt corporatism. The question is how to solve that without completely disrupting the world's economy, placing the financial support of everybody's parents on their children and probably causing WW3 in the process as despots take advantage of the chaos that has been created.
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 13, 2016 9:09:56 GMT -6
Like I said I have no solution but am eagerly reading and waiting for one. Repealing Citizen United would be a good start. The Tech Sector has spent almost a billion dollars in political contributions since 2008. How much clout would they have if they could not influence our politicians at all financially? In 2008 Romney and Obama spent 1 Billion each on their political campaigns. What if they could not spend a dime and television, radio and the internet and all three were mandated to supply free access to a number of debates determined by the political parties? Like all oligarchies it takes time for the oligarchy to go too far. I think the Sanders/Trump phenomenon is proof that we're getting closer to a reckoning. Do you know what the Citizen's United case was actually about? Here's the first graphs of the wiki entry, the bold is mine. >>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States.[2][3] In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA".[4] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]<< Now, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 in contrast, was released at the end of June, 2004 and the DVD was released in October of 2004, in an election year, becoming the largest selling documentary of all time. Crickets from the FEC about corporations influencing elections on that one. The prominence of both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and the utter failure of Jeb Bush or any other "establishment" candidate on the Republican side and the stubborn persistence of Bernie Sanders in the face of the Clinton juggernaut on the Democratic side demonstrate to me that the Citizens decision doesn't mean a hill of beans to the political landscape. Neither Trump, Cruz or Bernie depend at all on corporate money. In addition, negative ads don't seem to have any effect at all on Trump. Citizens is a boogie-man. We need more political speech, not less. The way to get money out of politics is to take power away from government, reducing politician's opportunities for selling influence. More regulation is not the answer. As for song writer and artist performance and royalties, they have been set by government all along. Is it reasonable that there would be no popular music industry without government decree? Record companies can set any sale price they can get for their product, but the broadcast and performance side is worthless without regulation setting a rate. There is sympathy in Washington from all parties about raising the statutory rates for streaming music. But considering all that's going on, it's a low priority for doing anything about it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,958
|
Post by ericn on May 13, 2016 9:11:05 GMT -6
Capitalism, communism and socialism are just different flavors of industrialism which is the real oppressor. All three could be really corrupt or a paradise. One can never be the solution to the corruption of another. An old San Francisco sage once said "The problem with the capitalists and communists is that they are both absolutely right about what's wrong with the other!" In real free market capitalism, there can be no limitations on liability. Corporations and insurance would both be illegal. Corporate hustlers are quick to claim the freedom in capitalism but completely ignore the responsibilities that go with that freedom for it to actually be either capitalism or fair. What we have is corrupt corporatism. The question is how to solve that without completely disrupting the world's economy, placing the financial support of everybody's parents on their children and probably causing WW3 in the process as despots take advantage of the chaos that has been created. [ Socialism "BAD" when it helps the people, BUT when you subsidize Corperations that's another story,
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 13, 2016 10:53:21 GMT -6
Repealing Citizen United would be a good start. The Tech Sector has spent almost a billion dollars in political contributions since 2008. How much clout would they have if they could not influence our politicians at all financially? In 2008 Romney and Obama spent 1 Billion each on their political campaigns. What if they could not spend a dime and television, radio and the internet and all three were mandated to supply free access to a number of debates determined by the political parties? Like all oligarchies it takes time for the oligarchy to go too far. I think the Sanders/Trump phenomenon is proof that we're getting closer to a reckoning. Citizens is a boogie-man. We need more political speech, not less. The way to get money out of politics is to take power away from government, reducing politician's opportunities for selling influence. More regulation is not the answer. Unlimited money to influence politicians isn't "speech" it's influence and it's dominated by multinational corporations. If we don't have a government to represent it's citizens and businesses, who would you rather have? Multinational corporations? My family and I own a shower door company that sells $40 million worth of ready made and custom shower doors. We had another, bigger, commodity business that was destroyed by multinationals who had the capital we didn't to build plants in Asia. Now, China- where US multinationals have a major capital investment and Wall Street benefits from our trade deficit by selling bonds to the Chinese- is starting to flood the market with ready made shower doors. So, when you've watched one business have to lay off 250 people, and now are facing another threat that could effect 200 people, this "free speech" angle doesn't play. Multinational influence money that is characterized as "free speech" is propaganda designed to dupe people with no business stake to favor multinational corporations.
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 13, 2016 11:14:38 GMT -6
This is the wrong forum for this discussion, and I'm going to stop, but before I do, I don't think ruthless competition from multinationals is caused by or cured by political advertisements. That's what we're talking about, with Citizens, advertisements. If anything, mega corporations don't mind the onerous government regulation and oversight usually prescribed as remedies to evil corporate business practice, because they can afford the compliance costs where a smaller competitor can't.
I've seen my songwriting income fall off a cliff this year, and I can't pinpoint a cause yet, because it does fluctuate, but I hope it's not the death of music ownership and the new regime of streaming coming in. Writers and publishers have traditionally had the good end of the music business income, that may well be changing before our eyes. We here all know that to attract the brightest minds and talent, and to create quality product, there has to be compensation for our labor. We're still making stuff that people want and expect a steady supply of.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 13, 2016 11:59:25 GMT -6
This is the wrong forum for this discussion, and I'm going to stop, but before I do, I don't think ruthless competition from multinationals is caused by or cured by political advertisements. That's what we're talking about, with Citizens, advertisements. If anything, mega corporations don't mind the onerous government regulation and oversight usually prescribed as remedies to evil corporate business practice, because they can afford the compliance costs where a smaller competitor can't. I've seen my songwriting income fall off a cliff this year, and I can't pinpoint a cause yet, because it does fluctuate, but I hope it's not the death of music ownership and the new regime of streaming coming in. Writers and publishers have traditionally had the good end of the music business income, that may well be changing before our eyes. We here all know that to attract the brightest minds and talent, and to create quality product, there has to be compensation for our labor. We're still making stuff that people want and expect a steady supply of. I agree we should stop, but I just want to say two things. 1. If these increased advertisements have no value, why for example did PhRMA's political spending go from less than $200,000 on federal elections in 2008 to $10.36 million on federal elections, 98 percent of it from undisclosed corporate sources in the next election? Are these corporations just stupid, or do they see value in their investment? And they just don't spend on Presidential campaigns, they spend on congressional campaigns so that when legislation is written they have influence. 2. I'm sorry to hear your songwriting income fall. You can count on me and I suspect most others here try to fight the powerful influences who would have your songs freely accessible to consumers with little compensation to you. Personally, I do not distinguish between your fight and the fight against all political influence money. There's a reason Silicon Valley spent $1 Billion dollars in political influence money since 2008. Do you think if songwriters could spend $1 Billion dollars in political influence money we'd have more clout? I do.
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 13, 2016 12:32:09 GMT -6
This is the wrong forum for this discussion, and I'm going to stop, but before I do, I don't think ruthless competition from multinationals is caused by or cured by political advertisements. That's what we're talking about, with Citizens, advertisements. If anything, mega corporations don't mind the onerous government regulation and oversight usually prescribed as remedies to evil corporate business practice, because they can afford the compliance costs where a smaller competitor can't. I've seen my songwriting income fall off a cliff this year, and I can't pinpoint a cause yet, because it does fluctuate, but I hope it's not the death of music ownership and the new regime of streaming coming in. Writers and publishers have traditionally had the good end of the music business income, that may well be changing before our eyes. We here all know that to attract the brightest minds and talent, and to create quality product, there has to be compensation for our labor. We're still making stuff that people want and expect a steady supply of. I agree we should stop, but I just want to say two things. 1. If these increased advertisements have no value, why for example did PhRMA's political spending go from less than $200,000 on federal elections in 2008 to $10.36 million on federal elections, 98 percent of it from undisclosed corporate sources in the next election? Are these corporations just stupid, or do they see value in their investment? And they just don't spend on Presidential campaigns, they spend on congressional campaigns so that when legislation is written they have influence. 2. I'm sorry to hear your songwriting income fall. You can count on me and I suspect most others here try to fight the powerful influences who would have your songs freely accessible to consumers with little compensation to you. Personally, I do not distinguish between your fight and the fight against all political influence money. There's a reason Silicon Valley spent $1 Billion dollars in political influence money since 2008. Do you think if songwriters could spend $1 Billion dollars in political influence money we'd have more clout? I do. You're painting a picture of rich successful business seeking to buy influence from politicians. I think it's the other way around. It's politicians soliciting contributions from successful business, for favorable treatment or to avoid punishment. Most of the lobbying in DC is business seeking to inform the regulatory bureaucracy, which isn't elected and has no oversight. It wouldn't cost the Internet companies to pay artists and writers, they'd pass it through to the users. XM/Sirius levies a surcharge for artist payments on its billing. Restricting speech doesn't work, and is bad for freedom, however well intended.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 13, 2016 12:34:34 GMT -6
It finally appears that there are fewer and fewer voters who believe politicians are elected by the people to serve the people.
The reality is polticians are chosen based on their willingness to serve corporations and the banksters and this has been going on for ever.
While the rise of support for Trump and Sanders seem to indicate voters have become disillusioned with the same old political 'dog and pony show' what we are seeing is just another variation of a 'dog and pony show' with the addition of some new colourful characters.
Personally I think Donald Trump is a ruse to keep the spotlight off Hillary's nefarious past. Trump may well end being Hillary's Trojan Horse.
If anyone has 'sold their soul' to the corporations it is indeed Clinton.
Whether or not there is a Clinton or a Bush in the Whitehouse is akin to being asked... "Would you rather drink rat poison or herbicide?"
My biggest concern is Hillary Clinton appears to have been ordained by not only Wall Street but the Neocons and, as she displays all the traits of a psychopath, I fear that means we could be in very rough time with Clinton in the Whitehouse.
And I'm speaking from the other side of the planet!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 13, 2016 13:02:45 GMT -6
I don't see where Clinton has sold her soul. All of her corporate connections are what every former New York Senator or Secretary of State would have. They go with both jobs as part of the constituencies she was charged with representing. The legitimate question is what did she do with those connections and was it ever at anybody's expense. I think there's a lot of guilt by association being projected on her in an attempt to discredit her among Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 13, 2016 14:15:43 GMT -6
I agree we should stop, but I just want to say two things. 1. If these increased advertisements have no value, why for example did PhRMA's political spending go from less than $200,000 on federal elections in 2008 to $10.36 million on federal elections, 98 percent of it from undisclosed corporate sources in the next election? Are these corporations just stupid, or do they see value in their investment? And they just don't spend on Presidential campaigns, they spend on congressional campaigns so that when legislation is written they have influence. 2. I'm sorry to hear your songwriting income fall. You can count on me and I suspect most others here try to fight the powerful influences who would have your songs freely accessible to consumers with little compensation to you. Personally, I do not distinguish between your fight and the fight against all political influence money. There's a reason Silicon Valley spent $1 Billion dollars in political influence money since 2008. Do you think if songwriters could spend $1 Billion dollars in political influence money we'd have more clout? I do. Most of the lobbying in DC is business seeking to inform the regulatory bureaucracy, which isn't elected and has no oversight. Brooksley Born the chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had more insight into the danger of the derivatives market- which collapsed our financial system which we will continue to feel the effect for decades- than the lobbyists and their government surrogates. I get you have faith in Libertarianism. I don't. So, we're not gonna get anywhere going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 13, 2016 18:23:12 GMT -6
Like I said I have no solution but am eagerly reading and waiting for one. Repealing Citizen United would be a good start. The Tech Sector has spent almost a billion dollars in political contributions since 2008. How much clout would they have if they could not influence our politicians at all financially? In 2008 Romney and Obama spent 1 Billion each on their political campaigns. What if they could not spend a dime and television, radio and the internet and all three were mandated to supply free access to a number of debates determined by the political parties? Like all oligarchies it takes time for the oligarchy to go too far. I think the Sanders/Trump phenomenon is proof that we're getting closer to a reckoning. A fucking men. Citizens United is the worst Supreme Court decision ever. I don't want to get TOO political with this but, Citizens United IS a sticking point of the monetarily connected, namely the republican party. If you don't like it, you know how to vote next time.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,958
|
Post by ericn on May 13, 2016 19:11:46 GMT -6
Repealing Citizen United would be a good start. The Tech Sector has spent almost a billion dollars in political contributions since 2008. How much clout would they have if they could not influence our politicians at all financially? In 2008 Romney and Obama spent 1 Billion each on their political campaigns. What if they could not spend a dime and television, radio and the internet and all three were mandated to supply free access to a number of debates determined by the political parties? Like all oligarchies it takes time for the oligarchy to go too far. I think the Sanders/Trump phenomenon is proof that we're getting closer to a reckoning. A fucking men. Citizens United is the worst Supreme Court decision ever. I don't want to get TOO political with this but, Citizens United IS a sticking point of the monetarily connected, namely the republican party. If you don't like it, you know how to vote next time. I'm far from conservative but here is the thing the only people who like the unlimited spending part of citizens united are politico's Ad agency's and broadcasters. The r majority of the rich hate it ! The days of "Sorry I already gave my limit" are gone! Most Corperations hedge their bets and give to both sides trying to be heard and HATE that everybody can keep coming back for more and more. Politicians HATE that more and more time is spent begging, BUT POLITICOS the people that make the political world go round see it as job security !
|
|