ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
So, let me get this straight. MItt's always been in favor of the Citizens United ruling, he thinks it's ok for big businesses and large corporations to donate huge sums of money to a political candidate, but it's not ok for a union, specifically a teacher's union, to donate? The reason being that it might influence a politician sitting at a barginning table but a politician passing a tax relief bill, contracting to do government business with or signing a subsidy wouldn't be????
Does he even think before he opens his mouth?
Republican nominee Mitt Romney said Tuesday that Democratic politicians have a conflict of interest in dealing with teacher unions because the unions contribute so heavily to their campaigns. He suggested that money should somehow be diverted or cut off, although he did not offer details.
Romney said, "The person sitting across the table from them should not have received the largest campaign contribution from the teachers union themselves ... [It's] an extraordinary conflict of interest and something that should be addressed."
He later added that "we simply can't have" elected officials who have received large contributions from teachers sitting across from them at the bargaining table "supposedly" to represent the interests of children. "I think it's a mistake," Romney said. "I think we have to get the money out of the teachers unions going into campaigns. It's the wrong way for us to go. We've got to separate that."
He then went on to totally diss a parent - if you get a chance, find the video - he as much as called the parent a liar - even though there is a poll which supports the parent's position and remark.
If that wasn't enough, when asked if all children deserved the quality of education he received he replied, ""That's not going to be available for the entire nation."
Certainly not if he's president, that's for sure.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Citizens United did not give corporations the right to donate to candidates, it gave them the right to buy ad time for issues and candidates. That is where corporate personhood comes in: the ruling was that it violated the First Amendment rights of corporations, specifically only certain corporations.
You are confused by his statement because you are confused about this issue.
First, while the court threw out decades-old constraints on corporations and unions today in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it preserved disclosure requirements that at least force those expenditures into the public eye.
Second, the court's dramatic reversal does not threaten the existing ban on direct corporate and union campaign contributions. So while those players may now lavish money from their treasuries on independent campaign expenditures, they still may not donate directly to candidates.