Slashdot Mirror
Royal Jordanian Airlines Bans Use of Electronics After US Voices Security 'Concerns' (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Royal Jordanian airlines banned the use of electronics on flights servicing the U.S. after government officials here expressed concerns. Details are scant, but CNN is reporting that other carriers based on the Middle East and Africa may be affected as well. The news broke when Royal Jordanian, a state-owned airline that operates around 500 flights a week, posted this cryptic notice on its Twitter feed. The ban, which includes laptops, tablets, and video games, but does not include smartphones or medical devices, is effective for Royal Jordanian flights servicing New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Montreal. A spokesperson for Royal Jordanian was not immediately available for clarification. Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that Royal Jordanian may not be the only carrier affected by these new security provisions. Jon Ostrower, the network's aviation editor, just tweeted that as many as 12 airlines based in the Middle East and Africa could be impacted. A Saudi executive also tweeted that "directives by U.S. authorities" could affect passengers traveling from 13 countries, with the new measure set to go into effect over the next 96 hours.
This probably has nothing to do with the fact that several middle-east based carriers have been consistently highly rated by passengers and, with their top notch service and low fares luring plenty of international travelers away from legacy US carriers.
+1
No one seems to blame Hillary for Trump, but she cockblocked all the better candidates with bribery and then proceeded to put up the worst campaign ever against Trump.
Why are we blaming Russia? It's her fucking fault. Trump is her legacy now.
C'mon now. HRC was a terrible candidate, but against Trump? She was Churchill. I honestly can't believe the later was a viable option for half the country.
Seriously, what the living fuck?
It was because Trump promised something, anything. What did Hillary promise? Nothing.
It was because Trump promised something, anything. What did Hillary promise? Nothing.
Trump promised everything to his core, although he's delivering exactly nothing.
C'mon now. HRC was a terrible candidate, but against Trump? She was Churchill. I honestly can't believe the later was a viable option for half the country.
Half the country is very concerned with job loss due to immigration (and for some, increased crime in their neighborhoods). Most candidates responded to these concerns - the hot-button single issue for a huge swath of voters - with "shut up, you racist". Trump didn't. Why is it in any way surprising he had a strong base?
Only Trump and Cruz even presented an immigration plan of any kind. It was obviously going to be one of those two who won the GOP primary, but I'm still surprised that it was Trump. I think credibility of anyone who works in DC is just that damn low now with the American working class. So low they took "crazy" just to get "outsider".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your emails have cost us yet again. Everything that's gone wrong for over a year has been ALL HILLARY'S FAULT!
E-mails where the least of her failures.. Remember, she lost the election to Donald Trump of all people... She lost to a guy who had never run for ANY public office before.... She lost to an opponent even though she had significantly more money. She lost, even though she didn't have a serious primary challenge and had the nomination sewed up long before her opponent. She lost even to a guy who said the stuff on that Access Hollywood tape that came out as a great October Surprise. She lost to a guy who got into stupid twitter fights though out the whole campaign. She lost the election yet won the popular vote because she campaigned in the wrong places... Hillary was horrible as a candidate...
Even more, this isn't the first time she lost to a novice, trying to be president, she lost in 2008 to a freshman Senator......
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
HRC lost the election, Trump did not win it. It was remarkable that Trump got elected.
I voted for neither of them (in the state I live in, it really doesn't matter who I vote for for President due to the EC and the solid political demographics in my state) and instead voted for a third party candidate whose party platform (not necessarily the candidate) better aligned with my political preferences. However, if I lived in a state where my vote had any chance of impacting the outcome, I would have found it an agonizing choice.
Neither Clinton or Trump are honest so there was little difference there.
Clinton was much better at evading and triangulates more expertly. She, for example, refused to answer a question, even when pressed, during the debate because any answer would have cost her some votes and gained her some votes and she wasn't sure which answer was the best "net gain" (that was when she essentially refused to state her opinion on if the Second Amendment supports an individual or a collective right -- she of course in reality subscribes to the discredited "collective rights" interpretation that was popular decades ago when she was coming of political/legal age). Trump on the other hand is crude and unsophisticated and says whatever random thing he's thinking at the moment. Generally I have to give advantage to Trump here -- Trump's lies and misconceptions are more likely to be exposed and obvious to more of the populace than Clinton's would be.
Clinton was much more technically qualified to be President of the United States, although supporting some questionable foreign policy decisions (such as the Iran deal) does not give me extreme confidence in her decision making skills. So, advantage to Clinton on this aspect.
However, what would probably have tipped me towards Trump, if I was faced with making the awful choice, would be the Supreme Court. I think judges should apply the law, not make it or fix it to match their social, religious, or political preferences -- if the law is broken, in their opinions they can suggest that maybe the legislature might want to look at fixing it but until it's "fixed", they should apply it. This President was likely to have the opportunity to seat two or three justices on the Supreme Court (obviously Scalia's replacement is one of these) and these are lifelong appointments that could shape the court for 30 years, long after the day-to-day stench of a Clinton or Trump term in office is hopefully little but a a trivial pursuit question (barring WWIII). Trump proposed a list of possible nominees who tended towards reading the Constitution and the law as written, not as they wish it were written. Clinton has consistently chosen to advocate laws that pretend the Second Amendment does not exist or is, at a minimum, not of the same "class" as, for example, the First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment or Fifth Amendment. Therefore, I had little confidence that she would nominate SCOTUS justices who, themselves, followed the "apply the law, do not make it or fix it" judicial philosophy.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Jon now reporting that Royal Jordainian has deleted its tweet.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Figured.
It was my first guess, after a manual trigger using depressurization switches in plastic tubes.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
A tablet has a lot more internal volume than a smartphone does.
This sounds like a concern about explosives or some other phyical attack.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Do they not understand that Montreal is in a different country?
The address books on my phone, tablet, and laptop are synchronized... guess again.
Jordan is one of the few beacons of hope in the Middle East - An American ally that is peaceful and provides a real example of what a mideast success story could be (if you haven't visited Jordan I encourage it - Great country).
But sure America, go and screw with them, because FREEDOM.
checked baggage damage / stolen laptops not covered or they only payout $200 for a damaged $2000+ apple laptop?
The only jobs we lose to immigrants are low pay shit jobs. The good jobs are not list to illegals, not taxes, not even the EPA, but to machinery that works nearly 24/7/365.
Your. Shovel. Can't. Compete. With. A. Dump. Truck.
Something doesn't compute for me with that argument. Isn't the current unemployment level ~4%?
Disclaimer: I do not live in the US.
Are you one of those sad little "concealed carry metallic penis compensator" types ?
Who givea a fuck about the 2nd ? It's a stupid idea that only appeals to blubbering cowards anyway. Get rid of it.
Keep in mind that that unemployment number doesn't count "discouraged workers", which are people who have stopped looking for a job after some amount of time (6 months?) of unemployment.
Mooslims must fly nekkid.
Half the country is very concerned with job loss due to immigration
Yet they seem far more interested in kicking out the immigrants than in punishing the companies who are hiring them. An immigrant can't take your job unless your employer gets rid of you and hires the immigrant. Instead of ICE showing up at courthouses to round up and deport people, maybe the Department of Labor should start showing up at corporate headquarters and carting those folks off.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
C'mon now. HRC was a terrible candidate, but against Trump? She was Churchill. I honestly can't believe the later was a viable option for half the country.
Half the country is very concerned with job loss due to immigration (and for some, increased crime in their neighborhoods)...
A lot of people are concerned about job loss and mistakenly blame immigrants. The fact is our economy would be much stronger tomorrow if we legalized everybody and made immigration easier. The United States has shifting demographics that are pushing it toward an older population and that ultimately will kill its GDP unless it encourages significant immigration. Bring people in legally so you can decide who you let in, and also by legalizing people who are already here you help make the playing field level and take illegal immigrants out of the gray market economy.
Out of all those electronics, they let smartphone go? If they're going to ban, they should've at least ban smartphone.
At least doing so make us proud when we use Etch A Sketch on the plane... how to turn this thing off again?
Based on the fact that they allow certain (small) electronics, as another posted noted it may be some sort of physical attack.
Maybe someone has figured out to (expertly) disguise small explosives as batteries? I don't know how current X-ray technologies (in the airport) work but maybe they can't easily distinguish between a lithium ion battery and an explosive? So if you were able to package them in the same volume and then wire them so that they "look" on the scanner like batteries then they would pass that review.
While it might be possible to detect this alteration by asking the passenger to prove that they are, indeed, unaltered electronic devices by turning them on, I can image a decent electronics guy could leave in one small battery so it could be powered on briefly (it would probably have to be wired differently to provide the necessary voltage). In addition this would cause the (already long?) delays to become longer as passengers would have to open them and boot up the devices (and afterwards shut them down and repack them). I think there may be neutron(?) based scanners that can detect the nitrogen compounds in explosives but I believe they are large and very expensive and would again add delays.
What's interesting is that (so far) this is not a worldwide prohibition but thankfully (at least for people not planning on traveling to and from the middle east/africa) restricted to just that area. So the ability to do this possible physical "hack" is only for now in the middle east and they only think people heading to the U.S. (and not say Europe) will use it. It must by some pretty specific intel to generate this kind of warning. Maybe the security measures/machines in that part of the world are not capable of reliably discriminating these attacks. Then again some restrictions, as other posters have mentioned, only apply to travel to the U.S., for example at Taipei's airport you must go through an additional screening step when on flights bound to the U.S. so perhaps it's just due to more heightened security awareness/paranoia on the American end.
Those "unemployment" numbers don't count the vast majority of people who aren't working. It's a scam number. But the labor participation rate - the % of the population actually working - is climbing off a long, very low trench.
Regardless, it doesn't matter if "unemployment in America" is good, these are people personally affected by it. Telling them "but its fine on average in America" doesn't help much. But, of course, most candidates weren't even saying that much, just dismissing people out of hand.
Same deal with neighborhood violence: all politics is local.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It has nothing to do with an attack. The US sent a directive to a bunch of carriers based in the Mid-East and Africa that said any flights coming into or going out of the US had to fly with those restrictions. It doesn't apply to other carriers going to those places and I'm guessing it applies to those carriers going to other places. It appears to be more of a business attack to help out US airlines rather than anything based on safety.
That's based on the limited amount of information that has leaked out but with the current government in the US the above would not surprise me in the least.
Maybe someone has figured out to (expertly) disguise small explosives as batteries?
TFA says only that they have "banned the use of electronics on flights servicing the US", (italics mine). It doesn't say that they've banned the presence of the devices. So either the article is poorly worded and unclear, or the ban has nothing to do with bombs masquerading as electronic devices.
This may be like the "take off your shoes at the airport" bullshit, in that it may have nothing to do with security. It may have everything to do with exercising control, establishing reflexive obedience to authority, and fostering acceptance of American dominance over people of all nationalities anywhere in the world. Just the type of behaviour that a certain kind of bully tends to engage in.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
So, I read one news article here,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Apparently they are banning electronic devices in the cabin due to the possibility of concealing explosives in them in "a way that is hard to detect". Ok, let's assume that is true. Question from me is, what difference does it make if it is in carry-on or checked baggage? Once it is on the plane, wouldn't an attacker be able to detonate it remotely if it is in checked baggage? Am I missing something here?
Half the country is very concerned with job loss (and for some, increased crime in their neighborhoods).
There, fixed that for you. I (and probably most people) agree that job loss and increased crime are things to be worried about. Attributing both problems to immigration based on no credible data is not the way to solve those problems, though. It may not be overtly racist, but it is fear without fact.
Why is it in any way surprising he had a strong base?
He won because he is a good cheerleader, and masterful at controlling his message. Probably better than Obama was during the 2008 election. That doesn't mean his policy ideas make sense, are not contradictory, or will ever actually be effective. In the same vein, Obama may have been a good orator, but he (rightfully) gets a lot of criticism from both the right and left for being a fairly ineffectual President.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/21/trump-wont-allow-you-to-use-ipads-or-laptops-on-certain-airlines-heres-the-underlying-story/?utm_term=.fe81fadb4606#comments
http://www.alpa.org/news-and-events/news-room/2017-03-16-alpa-joins-open-letter
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Yes, but its change relative to recent years is an honest gauge, not gamed by politicians to further their agenda.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I would go ahead and create a outright culture of fear and terror among the civil servant class... I would make these as public as possible, so as to damage their future job prospects.
Really? You want to resort to witch hunts and blacklisting? That's effectively what this is.
Let's say you do offer rewards. Productivity will plummet as soon as everyone realizes they can't even take the chance of looking like they might do something wrong.
If you do that, the only people left in the government will be idiots and syncophants who can't/won't do anything effective on their own. You think the government has issues now?
There are people will report everything little thing or just lie for a shot at the rewards. Or they'll use the reporting as means of dealing with grudges and competition. What do you think will happen when all the good people say, "Fuck it, I'm not working in a paranoia-inducing shithole where everyone is looking for an excuse to rat me out?"
You are basically suggesting that we make the US government into the worst employer in the country.
This is one of the worst suggestions I have ever seen, and I sincerely hope that you have no authority to manage people at your employer.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
There, fixed that for you. I (and probably most people) agree that job loss and increased crime are things to be worried about. Attributing both problems to immigration based on no credible data is not the way to solve those problems, though. It may not be overtly racist, but it is fear without fact.
The question was "why did Trump win". The answer is: because of answers like yours. Actual far-right parties are rising across Europe because of this lack of answers with emotional resonance. When no one sane will address the actual crime and violence, the actual effect on employment seen by people in their daily lives, people will turn to actual Nazis if that's the only party addressing their concerns.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Hillary explained reality to us. Trump promised a fantasy.
The American people chose fantasy over reality.
So your suggestions are intentionally poisonous and should be ignored by anyone who wants a working government. No problem there.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Ok, fair enough. I do agree that Trump's rhetoric has "emotional resonance". But I don't agree that it actually solves any problems. Do we need to solve problems? Yes. Do we need our politicians to get their heads out of their asses and make efforts to implement real solutions? Yes. Does polarization, manipulation, and scapegoating help us actually solve those problems? No.
Just one small example:
Do people need access to affordable health coverage? Yes.
Was the ACA a perfect solution? No. It was a compromise that attempted to adhere to free market principles that we value while also trying to protect the vulnerable and not balloon deficits.
Did the ACA achieve at least some of its goals? Yes. Coverage was increased. Deficits did not balloon out of control. And the incentives for hospitals to seek ways to improve care and reduce costs were having some promising early results.
Did the ACA have problems? Yes. The individual market was not stable, due to a variety of reasons. There was a gap in subsidy eligibility that caused some people to experience undue hardship with the increased cost of premiums. And medium-small business owners faced hardship providing health coverage to their employees.
Can those problems be solved without scrapping the ACA entirely? YES. The causes to most of those problems are understood fairly well, especially the problems with the individual market. The ACA can be tweaked to solve these problems and achieve more of its goals.
Is that what is currently being sought by the powers that be? No. Because, as you said, "repeal and replace" has emotional resonance. People fell for the rhetoric and are now demanding that promise be kept. However, it is not possible to keep all of the campaign promises. The proposed AHCA is a shitty plan that exposes the compromises that must be made (coverage, cost, choice), and almost nobody likes it. As Trump admitted himself, "health care is unbelievably complicated."
So what are we going to do? Are we going to set priorities and look at data to solve real problems? Or are we going to hype up our rhetoric so that we can keep winning elections, but ultimately fail at actually solving problems?
To partially answer my own question: a) we need a legislature that is willing sacrifice some ideological purity for the sake of practical solutions (the shortcomings to the ACA were known years ago, but Obama was unable to get congressional support to implement any fixes), and b) we need a more concerted effort by political leaders to work locally, so that proper two-way communication can occur (here's the legislative intent. is it working? what problems remain? what are the most important priorities?). Neither Democrats nor Republicans have done either of these things in LOOONNNGGG time.
She got more votes than Obama in 2012. Electoral college system worked
Fixed it for you....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Were fundamentally blocked, I'd say, partly on ideological purity, but more on the fundamental corruption of the federal government: it exists mostly to protect the financial interests of the establishment donors. Globalism is great for multinational corporations. Open borders are great for those who can afford to travel to Europe on a whim.
Our government has been stable a long time serving those interests, and now, with that challenged (and thus the primary focus of all the back rooms), issues of actual like what to do about health care, are getting minimal efforts, mostly retreaded bad ideas.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Agreed. The Citizens United decision states very plainly what has been obvious to many for a long time. If spending money to support candidates is speech and is protected as such, then those with the most money have the greatest influence. It is a shortcoming of our political system that will be hard to fix.
Globalism is great for multinational corporations.
The thing is, "Globalism" is more than one thing. It has upsides and downsides.The ratio of upsides:downsides depends on how it is implemented and who gets how much of each. The statement "Globalism is great for multinational corporations" is true, but it is an oversimplification. Speaking as a non-multinational corporation, I think globalism has benefited me and many people around me as well, but that doesn't mean it isn't without its downsides. I do think the overwhelming share of monetary benefit has gone to corporate profits, that those corporate profits have not contributed enough back to the betterment of society (tax evasion, corrupt local governments, etc), and as a result a majority of people feel that globalism has left them behind. However, the macroeconomic benefits of globalism are pretty clear, from a lot of very good data. The responsibility of governments and political leaders is to lessen discomforts, ease transitions, and distribute the benefits of globalism so that people do not get left behind. Attempting to stop it, in my opinion, is futile at best and severely detrimental to the economy as a whole at worst.
Most people misunderstand Citizens United. It actually helps level the playing field. I can't buy an ad spot big enough to matter, but if there are a bunch of like-minded people who can pool are money, we can. The alternative is the far-reaching political speech is limited to the likes of Jeff Bezos, who can buy an entire newspaper (this was the norm in the age of the robber barons).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I doubt you can pool enough money to offset Warren Buffet, the Koch brothers, Bill Gates, Tim Cook, Larry Ellison, Rupert Murdoch, or any number of other like-minded billionaires. Nevermind the most significant finding of Citizens United, which was that the above are not limited to their own personal wealth, but can also make use of an unlimited amount of corporate wealth as well, which is usually far greater. So if you're ever wondering what the billions in offshored tax-haven safe profits are being used for, it's that, and they don't have to disclose it.
Of course prior to Citizens United, limits on campaign finance spending was really just an illusion (super PACs and armies of lawyers can get around pretty much anything), so it has been a problem for a while, just more out in the open now. How do we fix it? Good question to be asking....
No, that's what people don't understand. CU wasn't some general-purpose corporation, it existed just to pool resources to run a political film. That ruling did not allow normal corporations to buy political ads.
If you allow newspapers to run political commentary at all, then the very rich can get their message across by simply buying the whole thing.
Another point the court made is that the New York Times is a corporation, and does quite a bit of political speech, as directly permitted by the 1st. Do you really want the government saying this corp that exists to publish speech can publish political speech, but that corp that exists to publish speech cannot? That would be the end of free speech.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Citizens United was a specific corporation, but the ruling applies to all corporations. Normal corporations cannot directly contribute to campaigns, that is still prohibited. But they don't need to. They can just independently buy five hours of prime-time TV spots to exercise their free speech....
The electioneering legislation was flawed, and its implementation justly criticized, but one can argue that the principle was sound. Don't allow corporations, which generally have much deeper coffers than individuals, to buy media spots to support particular candidates or parties near an election. Keep in mind that the restriction was also against unions. It has been ruled unconstitutional, which I don't disagree with, but it leaves us in a tough situation. Media spots cost money and corporations have more money to spend (as well as a more vested interest) than individuals or even loosely associated groups of individuals. Why should Tim Cook use his personal wealth to buy media spots to help Apple when he can just get his board to agree to budget a few billion a year to funding political speech to serve its interests. The most influential super PACs have corporate backers. They are not loosely associated Joe Blows like yourself and I or the local PTO.
If you allow newspapers to run political commentary at all, then the very rich can get their message across by simply buying the whole thing.
Another point the court made is that the New York Times is a corporation, and does quite a bit of political speech, as directly permitted by the 1st.
Agreed. However, there is an important distinction to be made between a media company like NYT, CNN, FOX, or CPB that publishes news (you don't want the news to be controlled by the government, so that means it is going to be run by a corporation, whether that be for-profit or non-profit) and a media company like Citizens United that exists solely to influence political opinion. News includes world events, local, national, business, weather, stock market, science, tech, arts, and yes political coverage. One can argue about political bias, and we do, a lot, but coverage of politics in the news is not the same thing as airing a front-page advertisement in support of a particular candidate leading up to an election.
Since you mentioned the NYT, notice that this election cycle they did publish prominent advertisements and official (ie: NYT editorial board) opinion pieces in support of HRC and against DJT. It was the first time ever, and they can do it now because of the Citizens United decision. I can't say I'm particularly thrilled with that development.
However, there is an important distinction to be made between a media company
That's the exact point the SCOTUS considered and rejected. What about political blogs? Just in general, if you give the government the power to decide which corporation is and is not in some special category when it comes to free speech, you've ended free speech. Surely you can see that? If we trusted the government not to abuse its power, we wouldn't need a constitution in the first place.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The legislation in question, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, was not concerned with "granting free speech to some corporations and not to others", which is the way you are trying to frame it. It was concerned generally with campaign finance reform, and specifically with putting limits on how much and what types of contributions corporations are allowed to make to political campaigns and what must be disclosed when they do so. The part of the legislation that made it vulnerable to the Supreme Court decision was its effort to regulate issue advocacy ads, or so-called "soft money" influences on political campaigns. The legislation had some issues, but it was more or less reasonable: it defined "electioneering communications" as broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and it prohibited corporations and unions from paying for such ads. That's really it. Fairly narrow in scope, not a blanket ban on free speech or talking about politics or any such thing.
Regulating corporate influence on our political campaigns has a long history. It is not a new idea invented by liberals to suppress conservatives. In addition to the BCRA, there is the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which has been amended several times and regulates contributions to political campaigns, parties, and PACs. It also implements disclosure rules. Before that there were several smaller bills, including the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910. What I'm trying to say is, the influence of money on the political system has been recognized as a problem for more than 100 years and there have been many efforts by both major parties to regulate it.
Before the Citizens United decision, campaign finance reform was not considered an issue of free speech, and it did not specifically favor one corporation over another. It targeted all corporations. It prevented a specific narrow type of political ad from being distributed in broadcast media channels during specific time frames leading up to major federal elections. It being 2002, the Internet was not a medium of much concern (so anything on the web would have been exempted, including political blogs). The Act in effect only targeted TV and radio. The FEC has a nice summary of the bill posted.
Electioneering Communications
An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:
The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office;
The communication is publicly distributed shortly before an election for the office that candidate is seeking; and
The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate (U.S. House and Senate candidates only).
Exemptions
The regulations at 11 CFR 100.29(c)(1) through (5) exempt certain communications from the definition of "electioneering communication":
A communication that is disseminated through a means other than a broadcast station, radio station, cable television system or satellite system. For example, neither printed media-including newspapers, magazines, bumper stickers, yard signs and billboards-nor communications over the internet, e-mail or the telephone are included;
The Supreme Court decided to overturn all of this, not just with Citizens United, but several other similar decisions as well. The advocates say "hey, free speech is free speech", and the detractors say "hey, this is opening the flood gates to unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns". However you choose to see it, it is not a simple problem with an easy solution.
So to answer your question,
Just in general, if you give the government the power to decide which corporation