1. Do you agree with the ruling in the Citizens United case? Why or why not? 2. How could large corporate campaign donations be positive? How could they be negative? 3. What national issues could be affected by corporate involvement in campaigns? (Ex: healthcare, international trade, climate issues, agriculture, etc.) by Wendy Stanish

colinsilber — 2024-10-22 16:09:05 UTC

I disagree, because corporations, organizations, and unions are multiple people rather than one person. Large campaign donations from organizations can be positive, because it will ensure better success. Many things can be effected, but the higher donations may improve everything in the long run.

2024-10-22 16:10:47 UTC

I disagree with the ruling in the Citizens United case because corporations should not be treated as individuals, as they are groups of individuals, not to mention there are A LOT of corporations. Many corporations will always outweigh groups of citizens, as it takes more citizens to produce the same amount of money corporations can. Corporation funding can be positive because it's more money, but it can also be negative because it influences the candidate to focus on benefits for corporations, rather than the general public. Since corporations lean conservative, national issues like climate change are not a concern to them, so candidates might never address these genuine issues. (also I am a self-claimed tree lover)

2024-10-22 16:11:16 UTC

No I do not; Big corpos would have way too much power and control with the money they have. While it could be a good thing, as large donations could help fund candidates a lot more, It also gives even more power to the Uber rich that they do not deserve or need.

2024-10-22 16:12:05 UTC

No. Laws based in bipartisanship are set to give the individual more of a say. Bipartisanship is, unfortunately, a less important issue in today's political landscape with it's peak being in the early 2000's. Our election system is based upon the individual and was created so that each singular person has an equal say. However, corporations are based in some sort of political agenda. Giving them an unchecked amount of power in our elections is directly unconstitutional. There is good that can be done by this corporations giving money to campaigns that have less advantage. However, they can give the same amount of money to a candidate who doesn't need it.

2024-10-22 16:12:14 UTC

I agree and disagree because on the one hand, it gives those corporations, organizations, and unions a voice. But on the other hand, it sort of lessens the voice of the people who aren't as wealthy as said corporations, organizations and unions.
It could be positive because it could spread more awareness about the candidate and help give them the final push, but it could also be negative because of how it may spread awareness about the negative aspects about the candidate as well.
It really depends on the policies that are being supported.

cassidylin — 2024-10-22 16:12:31 UTC

I disagree since organizations made up of multiple people being considered as "individuals" is unfair in comparison to actual individuals donating money, like an unfair fight. Large corporate donations can provide support for the large masses if donated to the correlating campaigns, but they can also promote the voices of only the rich if corporations spend their money in their own interest.

2024-10-22 16:12:56 UTC

I disagree with the ruling. The big corporations as a whole, don't really care about national issues, such as climate change, healthcare, etc. In the end, I think that if a donation was given under the name of the whole corporation, it wouldn't be just the individuals anymore. However, if the individuals themselves donated the money under their own name and NOT under the company, then I think that it would be more reasonable.

cailynstringer — 2024-10-22 16:12:58 UTC

I disagree. Corporations and organizations are groups of people. Large donations can be beneficial because they can help out campaigns. Lots of things can end up affected depending on the candidate and where the funding goes,but all in all large donations give more power to people who don't need it.

2024-10-22 16:13:28 UTC

I disagree because corporations are not singularities as they are made of many people. Corporations control a lot of money and can significantly influence elections. I think there should be a limit on campaign donations from corporations due to significant advantages.

2024-10-22 16:14:40 UTC

I'm not sure how I feel about the ruling in the Citizens United case. Large campaign donations from organizations could be negative because it only supports what the whole organization believes. Large campaigns will usually outnumber citizens, especially in providing donations.

2024-10-22 16:14:56 UTC

I don't, corporations shouldn't be treated as individuals.
Your candidate would probably have a better shot at winning after they got a large amount of money from a corporate campaign.
Healthcare would be affected by insurance companies, climate issues would be affected by most companies who look to cut costs as well the companies that directly contribute to climate issues such as oil giants, car companies, mining companies, and airlines. It has proven time and time again that companies will protect their interests of profits over the well beings of others. Exxon funded climate research in the 70s and learned what we know today about the climate change and did nothing about it, burying the information to protect profits.

2024-10-22 16:15:26 UTC

I disagree because the large corporations are not just one person and shouldn't be treated as such. Since they are a bigger mass, they should have their money limited.

2024-10-22 16:15:51 UTC

I disagree with the ruling in the Citizens United case because individuals are literally an individual not a whole group that has lots of money. So their argument makes no sense because the balance is not there brother.

The large donations can be positive; like funding the healthcare corporations that benefit the communities.

Climate issues can be affected by corporation involvement in campaigns because the donation can come from a certain political party which can show their support or disinterest in the topic.

2024-10-22 16:16:17 UTC

I disagree with the ruling because it is unfair to give so much power to large corporations and yet treat them as individuals at the same time. With the money that they have, they have much more of a say in government, in comparison to those with less money. There is a significant difference in power based on money, and that ultimately impacts the decisions made in government.

2024-10-22 16:16:47 UTC

I disagree that only big corporations should be heard because little people should be heard also. I think it should be fair for everyone to be heard regardless of how much money you have.

2024-10-22 16:17:21 UTC

I disagree with the ruling because corporations are run by multiple people and, therefore should not be treated as individuals. I believe that there should be a monetary limit on how much a corporation can donate to political campaigns.

2024-10-22 16:18:09 UTC

I personally disagree with the ruling, I feel that corporations should not be treated as individuals when it comes to campaign donations, because they simply just aren't individuals. While it could be a good thing, as large corporate donations can help bring a positive change if given to the right candidate, they could also cause the opposite. All corporations have their own agendas, and whether good or bad, these corporations have more power than the individual citizens, and therefore are more capable of enacting their agendas.

2024-10-22 16:18:11 UTC

I disagree because I think that while large corporations should still be able to contribute to their political party I think that they should not be seen as individuals.
They can be positive because of how it supports a party when it is need of support. However it could be negative because its very easy to become corrupt with donations from large corporations.
Any issues being discussed (or worse not discussed) by the candidates could be affected by excessive support from the corporations.

2024-10-22 16:20:02 UTC

I disagree. An entire corporation should not be allowed to take a side. Corporations are not political parties or any of that so they should stay out of it. The CEO's personal beliefs should not weigh on the entire company's shoulders because then all the employees get roped in with that particular belief as well. It's like with Chick Fil A, the owner of the company donated corporation money to homophobic organizations and everyone got mad and started harrassing the employees blahblahblah. This happens a lot and for it to stop, we have to disallow corporations to donate heaps of money to political causes because it is unfair to their workers and society in general. If only the most powerful voices are heard, that is not democracy!

2024-10-22 16:20:26 UTC

I do not agree with the ruling in the Citizens United case because organizations should act on things as one person.
Large corporate campaign donations could be positive because they provide more funding and money no matter what but it could be negative because then they could only be highlighting the thoughts and vices of wealthy people/corporations.
Corporate political contributions could further affect issues like the climate crisis, drugs, and crime.

2024-10-22 16:21:20 UTC

This is the greatest and best song in the world

Tribute

Long time ago me and my brother Kyle here

We was hitchhiking down a long and lonesome road

All of a sudden

There shined a shiny demon

In the middle of the road

And he said!

"Play the best song in the world, or I'll eat your soul" (soul)

Well, me and Kyle

We looked at each other

And we each said

"Okay"

And we played the first thing that came to our heads

Just so happened to be

The best song in the world

It was the best song in the world

Look into my eyes and it's easy to see

One and one make two, two and one make three

It was destiny

Once every hundred thousand years or so

When the sun doth shine

And the moon doth glow and the grass doth grow

Needless to say

The beast was stunned

A-whip crack went his swampy tail

And the beast was done

He asked us

"Gnwah

Be you angels?"

And we said "Nay

We are but men"

Rock

Ahhh!

Hoh, whoa-o-a-oh

Ay-o-a-o-a-oh

This is not the greatest song in the world, no

This is just a tribute

Couldn't remember the greatest song in the world, no, NO!

This is a tribute, oh

To the greatest song in the world

Alright

It was the greatest song in the world

Alright

Yes it was the best song, the greatest song in the world oh-

Rahmp! Di, tsu-ga-mm-gi-guk, gi

Guga fli-gu-gi-gu, ga fli-gu-gi-gu, d-dee-ee

Yu-gu-guk di, yu-go-go-gu-gu-ga-be

Fli-gu-gi-gu, a-fli-gu-gi-ga whoo-ma-mama

Lu-cifer!

And the peculiar thing is this my friends

The song we sang on that fateful night

It didn't actually sound anything like this song!

This is just a tribute

You gotta believe me

And I wish you were there

Just a matter of opinion

Aohh!

Good God

Gotta love him

I'm so surprised to find you can't stop him

The fiery ring of fire

Rittsss, the greatest song

Alright

2024-10-22 16:22:31 UTC

isabellaalonzo — 2024-10-22 16:22:33 UTC

I'm still not sure since I'm confused but I think I have to disagree because it's more than one person being viewed which is unjust to the people donating their money.

In all honesty I don't even know what I'm writing down.

2024-10-22 16:23:50 UTC

Bee Movie
BARRY:
- Adam?
ADAM:
- Can you believe this is happening?
BARRY:
- I can't. I'll pick you up.
(Barry flies down the stairs)
 :
MARTIN BENSON:
Looking sharp.
JANET:
Use the stairs. Your father
paid good money for those.
BARRY:
Sorry. I'm excited.
MARTIN:
Here's the graduate.
We're very proud of you, son.
 :
A perfect report card, all B's.
JANET:
Very proud.
(Rubs Barry's hair)
BARRY=
Ma! I got a thing going here.
JANET:
- You got lint on your fuzz.
BARRY:
- Ow! That's me!

JANET:
- Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000.
- Bye!
(Barry flies out the door)
JANET:
Barry, I told you,
stop flying in the house!
(Barry drives through the hive,and is waved at by Adam who is reading a
newspaper)
BARRY==
- Hey, Adam.
ADAM:
- Hey, Barry.
(Adam gets in Barry's car)
 :
- Is that fuzz gel?
BARRY:
- A little. Special day, graduation.
ADAM:
Never thought I'd make it.
(Barry pulls away from the house and continues driving)
BARRY:
Three days grade school,
three days high school...
ADAM:
Those were awkward.
BARRY:
Three days college. I'm glad I took
a day and hitchhiked around the hive.
ADAM==
You did come back different.
(Barry and Adam pass by Artie, who is jogging)
ARTIE:
- Hi, Barry!

BARRY:
- Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good.
ADAM:
- Hear about Frankie?
BARRY:
- Yeah.
ADAM==
- You going to the funeral?
BARRY:
- No, I'm not going to his funeral.
 :
Everybody knows,
sting someone, you die.
 :
Don't waste it on a squirrel.
Such a hothead.
ADAM:
I guess he could have
just gotten out of the way.
(The car does a barrel roll on the loop-shaped bridge and lands on the
highway)
 :
I love this incorporating
an amusement park into our regular day.
BARRY:
I guess that's why they say we don't need vacations.
(Barry parallel parks the car and together they fly over the graduating
students)
Boy, quite a bit of pomp...
under the circumstances.
(Barry and Adam sit down and put on their hats)
 :
- Well, Adam, today we are men.

ADAM:
- We are!
BARRY=
- Bee-men.
=ADAM=
- Amen!
BARRY AND ADAM:
Hallelujah!
(Barry and Adam both have a happy spasm)
ANNOUNCER:
Students, faculty, distinguished bees,
 :
please welcome Dean Buzzwell.
DEAN BUZZWELL:
Welcome, New Hive Oity
graduating class of...
 :
...9:
 :
That concludes our ceremonies.
 :
And begins your career
at Honex Industries!
ADAM:
Will we pick our job today?
(Adam and Barry get into a tour bus)
BARRY=
I heard it's just orientation.
(Tour buses rise out of the ground and the students are automatically
loaded into the buses)
TOUR GUIDE:
Heads up! Here we go.

ANNOUNCER:
Keep your hands and antennas
inside the tram at all times.
BARRY:
- Wonder what it'll be like?
ADAM:
- A little scary.
TOUR GUIDE==
Welcome to Honex,
a division of Honesco

2024-10-22 16:26:13 UTC

I don't know what to say, but I'll say something anyway to participate. The donations of large corporations can be negative if they are being overrepresented which means that they are giving too much money. If the party that's being supported doesn't care about the needs of the people, then that's gonna negatively impact the world in the future. So I guess I don't agree with the ruling of the CU case.