The JOBS Act enjoyed large support on Wall Street, who in fact actively lobbied for the bill.
The opposition mostly came from the AARP ("would expose ignorant ivnestors to more potential for abuse"), the AFL-CIO ("too much deregulation"), and such.
It even enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, and this is in 2012, with a Republican Congress that has habitually obstructed anything the President has supported.
Actually the exact opposite of what you said is what's happening. It is was previously illegal. It is now legal. That's not shutting the door.
You simply dont actually know what actually occuring. You are ignorant of the facts.
Crowdfunding of securities has been illegal since 1933 (The Securites Act of 1933). The JOBS act (2012) changed that, and directed the SEC, the regulatory body incharge of regulating and overseeing Securities, to create regulations so that the selling of securities (investment shares) in this manner could be performed with the same (or equivalent) oversight and regulation as every other form of selling shares ALREADY has.
No it isn't. Only a conservative could ignore enough facts to twist taking something that was illegal, and now making it legal, and call it "overreach".
Crowdfunding of securities has been illegal since 1933 (The Securites Act of 1933). The JOBS act (2012) changed that, and directed the SEC, the regulatory body incharge of regulating and overseeing Securities, to create regulations so that the selling of securities (investment shares) in this manner could be performed with the same (or equivalent) oversight and regulation as every other form of selling shares ALREADY has.
Yes it is. Investment wasnt created after the Constitution, and the idea that commerce includes investment isnt even relatively new. Buying a company outright is quite clearly commerce, and so is buying pieces of the same company.
This subthread is silly.
The Gov isnt sticking their nose anywhere that it wasnt already. The Securities Act of 1933 (created in response to the great depression) is what made crowdfunding of investment illegal. The JOBS act specifically allows such investment, provided the SEC create rules to governmen it, one of whcih is that the websites acting as the agents in this register with the SEC, just like any other company offering shares in the traditional market via the traditional means.
I say again, this subthread is silly and pointless.
A Regulation that came about because of the passage of a law to enable the crowdfunded investment in companies that.... you know what? screw it.
You're an idiot and not worth the time it would take to educate you on how it is neither a useless nor burdonsome regulation, how it was a real problem.
Did you go to school stupid, or just come out that way?
No really, I'm curious. Because the information is in the article. A little bit of research further shows what's going on.
You are simply, compeltely, and a totally, WRONG.
Aristos has the right of it: this isnt meddling. This isnt inapprorpriate. this is EXACTLY the sort of thing the SEC exists for. THIS IS NOT ABOUT KICKSTARTER, or similiar, where you are NOT investing in a company, but rather simply preordering a good/service. Investing means buying shares, means you now own a piece of that company. That isnt about kickstater, and this doesnt apply to them.
This is about a company selling shares in itself, which is PRECISELY the sort of behaviour the SEC exists to regulate. Crowdsourcing has been an illegal source of selling shares. That got changed, and the SEC got directed to create regulations to oversee and regulate it for the protection of hte market and potential investors looking to invest in this manner. The SEC did so.
Your outrage is based in ignorance. You are an ignorant person. Go away.
you mean like how the investment market was unregulated prior to the Great Depression and the creation of the SEC, a commission created specifically to oversee such a market and prevent another economic collapse cause by said unregulated market?
This is the SEC doing its job and overseeing and regulating an emerging source of investment funds enabled by new technology. This vector was initially outlawed, largely because they didnt know how to oversee it, and it was easier to just preserve the status quo. Now it is no longer outlawed. but it still requires oversight and still falls under teh SEC's purview.
I really hope you just forgot your sarcam tags. Otherwise.....
Some people just want to watch the world burn....but most don't. Most would never committ such acts if they didn't feel they had no other choice.
The role of government is any role that we the people feel fit to assign it. The role of government is as the collective enforcer and executor of the collective will of we the people. And yes that includes punishing transgressors after the fact. But if we want it to prevent crime....it can do that too.
Crime prevention can be as simple as making sure they have enough food to eat, earn a high enough wage they can support themselves, and get a proper education so they can further themselves in life and have a potential value to society. All these things reduce desperation and open up opportunities, reducing crime in the process. These are facts.
But instead the Norquists of the world tell us we have to eliminate all social programs, all regulations, all laws that protect the weak from the stronger, and leave everyone to their own individual skills and abilities, with no help from any outside sources. Instead of working as a community to better ourselves, we should treat each other with suspicion, as someone to be conquered and overcome. This of course will leave everyone at the mercy of the accident of birth, with those born to rich families, or those who are phsyically or mentally stronger, in charge, but hey...its your own fault you were born poor or weak, right?
The article is not clear, but this is traditional investing via crowdsourcing. Selling securities or equity, like a normal IPO. This makes the same rules apply everywhere, and closes a loophole advantageous to people who could go the traditional route but decide not to. Kickstarter, where you pre-order merchandise, does not seem to be affected. Do you think the SEC should regulate investing any differently because it happens on the web? I'm assuming the answer is "oh, I misunderstood."
So in actuallity, this isnt SEC going after new minor shiny instead of their mandate. This actually IS the SEC performing their mandate. Feel free to edit your post accordingly (oh wait...we can't do that on/. yet)
believe me, there are a great many of christians who are equally upset at the hypocrisy. as for YEC, it is a fairly recent creation (pun not intended). Most Christains dont actually believe it, though it gets all the attention lately.
my pet peeve is that, if in a country such as ours 80% of the population identifies as Christian (something like 55% Protestant and 25% Catholic), but politically the country is roughly (close enough) split 50/50 right and left, that means there are a considerable number of Christians who are and vote liberal/democrat.
but on slashdot (and seemingly in pop culture), the perception is that all christians are right wingnut zealots. and that just aint true.
Your delusion is in thinking that science and faith are mutually exclusive. They aren't incompatible at all. One is by definition physical, the other metaphysical.
YEAH! CoD 2192439 > Super Mario World. EA's NFL 2049 > Fifa 2001. etc. etc.
Why? Because newer = better. Always. No game ever stands the test and exhibits timeless gameplay. Ever.
Or maybe you're just a douche who feels the need to feel intellectually superior by putting others down because of their opinions and tastes in video games... Actually ya, that seems much more likely.
met my fair share who are definitely fundamentalist, and want to do me a favor by barring me from my religion. frankly they're no different from the people who want to do me a favor by saving my soul for me by converting me to their flavor. what i actually want is of no consequence to either type.
because you have access to all the NSA and CIAs documents, because they always broadcast everything they do and may have prevented.... again devils advocate. but its easy, since you're so foolish, as with your previous "comments" on economic theory, also known as "I failed Econ 101, but here's what I think".
Realistically, bringing up the marathon bomber is silly. Knowing what we know about them, the NSA's surveillance would never have caught them. they both never did anything to bring them up on the radar, and the NSA's program is not yet the All Seeing Eye people make it out to be.
Not supporting it, just pointing out the hyperbole on Slashdot lately is reaching astronomical proportions lately, and the level of ration logical thought is decreasing inversely.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The 3000 dead at the WTC, the 10000 military dead, the hundreds of thousands more injured, the people on the other side....yes it's all insignificant to the idea of being watched. Being watched...that's the real threat.
Just one question though....how many people has being watched maimed or killed again?
Just a bit of devil's advocate. Im no fan of the snowden leaks. im no fan of the constitution being eroded. But surveillance is not the most harmful thing in the world, and the idea that they might conceivably prevented the past 12 years of warfare is a noble one. you would do well to cast your hyperbole aside and proceed to live in the real world, and make more reasonable statements.
also the notion that government is only a taker is the purest grade AA bullshit. you statements are a flat contradiction to the most basic of first year economics classes.
and where did he say it is the whole of the economy? no where. and you say your opinion comes form countless scientists? by that i must assume you dont mean many, but rather too few to be counted, as in zero.
It's simple math, and simple economics. In economics the Gov is on the opposite side of the equation from private business.
When the economy is flourishing, the gov doesnt need to spend much to promote growth. in fact its better off saving those revenues (which are larger due to the healthy economy) for a rainy day.
Then when the rainy day comes.....the government spends. business is hurting, so they arent spending. economic contraction happens. the government spending, promoting business, workers, infrastructure projects, etc, keeps money in the economy, limiting the contraction of the weak economy and making it healthier.
if you're of a biblical bent, in your bible you may remember the story of Joseph, he of the technicolor jacket. the who advised pharaoh during a time of plenty to set aside massive quantities of grain for the years of famine that were ahead. when the famine happened, the grain was released, and no one starved.
see? even the bible tells you the government should spend when the economy is poor to prop it up.
Oh please. a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote in this country.
There are no serious 3rd parties in this coutnry because of how our elections work. the two big parties havent been in danger from a 3rd party candidate for decades. In the 2012 election even the BEST performing 3rd party candidate only recieved 0.9% of the popular vote, and not a single electoral.
The only forseeable viable third party in this country is the soon to exist Tea Party, if they Republicans succesfully kick them out of the party. They probably won't though because they are still far too dependent on them to win elections. and as we've seen, ideals and message don't matter nearly as much as actually winning elections. IE, Winning > Integrity.
Want to make 3rd parties viable and get actual representitive representation in this country? Then 4 things need to happen: 1- Kill the Electoral College. 2- Kill the First Past the Post voting system. 3- Kill all campaign contributions. 4- Kill gerrymandering.
Wow you are funny. You've got the Fox news version of the story: a couple of minor facts, mixed with equal parts ignorance and outrage.
The Constitution is in effect, but there is no single interpretation, immutable and unchangable for all time. The Founder's wrote a document for their day. We no longer live in their day. Society has advanced. Attitudes and cultural mores have changed. We're reinterpreted core and founding principles to reflect the society of today. Remember that the USC is not, never was, and never will be, perfect. The goal is the creation of a "more perfect union", which carries the implication that that is an eternal struggle, for a noble goal that will never actually be attained.
No, not clearly a violation. In fact, if you knew anything you wold know that the ACA gives the adminstration large leeway in the execution of its precepts. Very few changes in the execution of a law actually requires Congressional approval first. Laws rarely state out a precise series of steps to be followed. It's more like a house: Congress may build the framework, but the Adminstration installs the wiring and pipes, puts up the drywall, paints the walls, and installs the furniture.
You included a dig at the Federal Reserve.....one of the most successful tools in our modern economy. Think about how common bank runs were prior to the creation of the FR. Now think about how rare they are since then. Banks used to fail. A lot. People would end up poor and broke, their money vanished. A lot. There is a regular reason people didnt trust banks back then, preferring mattresses. The FR solved all that, and helped the economy to perpetually grow: no longer would money sit idle, it could be loaned again via banks, to create worth and capital. This too helps stave off stagnation, recessions, etc. It's not foolproof, but its a helluva lot more stable than it was before the FR.
Beyond a few temporary spats, Congress has never not passed a budget. You could argue that the Continuin Resolutions dont count, but really, they do. They perform the task of funding hte government, even if they merely maintain the current status quo. Yes, ideally they would actually have a full debate, and real budget, and yes even the most recent compromise while called a budget is really just another CR, albeit for a much longer term. But they have still be funding the government. This has little to do with the Constitution though, and more to do with obstructionist politics.
The Surpreme Courts job is not to right every wrong, to get involved in every case, to settle everything how you think it should be. The USC is only interested in cases of a national interest. Cases that settle a clear and present legal question, that has implications not just for the persons involved, but potentially the entire nation.You complain about how they feel, yet that is EXACTLY what a Judge does; like complaining about airplanes flying. A Judge's job is to use his own judgement, ie how he feels, about a matter of law to make a decision, based ont he facts of a case weighed against prior legal precedent and established law. You've obviously never actually read an actual legal decision from the USC.
And as for the actual Citizens United decision, corporations CANNOT donate more than ordinary people. They do not get an exemption. The campaign contribution limits are still in force:
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22]
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no.
Nothing you say is true.
The JOBS Act enjoyed large support on Wall Street, who in fact actively lobbied for the bill.
The opposition mostly came from the AARP ("would expose ignorant ivnestors to more potential for abuse"), the AFL-CIO ("too much deregulation"), and such.
It even enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, and this is in 2012, with a Republican Congress that has habitually obstructed anything the President has supported.
Actually the exact opposite of what you said is what's happening.
It is was previously illegal.
It is now legal.
That's not shutting the door.
You simply dont actually know what actually occuring.
You are ignorant of the facts.
Crowdfunding of securities has been illegal since 1933 (The Securites Act of 1933).
The JOBS act (2012) changed that, and directed the SEC, the regulatory body incharge of regulating and overseeing Securities, to create regulations so that the selling of securities (investment shares) in this manner could be performed with the same (or equivalent) oversight and regulation as every other form of selling shares ALREADY has.
This is not overreach.
This is deregulation.
No it isn't.
Only a conservative could ignore enough facts to twist taking something that was illegal, and now making it legal, and call it "overreach".
Crowdfunding of securities has been illegal since 1933 (The Securites Act of 1933).
The JOBS act (2012) changed that, and directed the SEC, the regulatory body incharge of regulating and overseeing Securities, to create regulations so that the selling of securities (investment shares) in this manner could be performed with the same (or equivalent) oversight and regulation as every other form of selling shares ALREADY has.
This is not overreach.
This is deregulation.
They're NOT going after anyone!
This has NOTHING to do with kickstarter!
This IS about Wall Street.
The Article, mother--cker, read it.
nope, you're still an idiot.
"Investment isnt commerce"
Yes it is. Investment wasnt created after the Constitution, and the idea that commerce includes investment isnt even relatively new.
Buying a company outright is quite clearly commerce, and so is buying pieces of the same company.
This subthread is silly.
The Gov isnt sticking their nose anywhere that it wasnt already. The Securities Act of 1933 (created in response to the great depression) is what made crowdfunding of investment illegal. The JOBS act specifically allows such investment, provided the SEC create rules to governmen it, one of whcih is that the websites acting as the agents in this register with the SEC, just like any other company offering shares in the traditional market via the traditional means.
I say again, this subthread is silly and pointless.
A Regulation that came about because of the passage of a law to enable the crowdfunded investment in companies that....
you know what? screw it.
You're an idiot and not worth the time it would take to educate you on how it is neither a useless nor burdonsome regulation, how it was a real problem.
Did you go to school stupid, or just come out that way?
No really, I'm curious.
Because the information is in the article.
A little bit of research further shows what's going on.
You are simply, compeltely, and a totally, WRONG.
Aristos has the right of it: this isnt meddling.
This isnt inapprorpriate.
this is EXACTLY the sort of thing the SEC exists for.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT KICKSTARTER, or similiar, where you are NOT investing in a company, but rather simply preordering a good/service.
Investing means buying shares, means you now own a piece of that company. That isnt about kickstater, and this doesnt apply to them.
This is about a company selling shares in itself, which is PRECISELY the sort of behaviour the SEC exists to regulate.
Crowdsourcing has been an illegal source of selling shares. That got changed, and the SEC got directed to create regulations to oversee and regulate it for the protection of hte market and potential investors looking to invest in this manner. The SEC did so.
Your outrage is based in ignorance.
You are an ignorant person.
Go away.
you mean like how the investment market was unregulated prior to the Great Depression and the creation of the SEC, a commission created specifically to oversee such a market and prevent another economic collapse cause by said unregulated market?
This is the SEC doing its job and overseeing and regulating an emerging source of investment funds enabled by new technology.
This vector was initially outlawed, largely because they didnt know how to oversee it, and it was easier to just preserve the status quo.
Now it is no longer outlawed. but it still requires oversight and still falls under teh SEC's purview.
I really hope you just forgot your sarcam tags. Otherwise.....
Some people just want to watch the world burn....but most don't.
Most would never committ such acts if they didn't feel they had no other choice.
The role of government is any role that we the people feel fit to assign it.
The role of government is as the collective enforcer and executor of the collective will of we the people.
And yes that includes punishing transgressors after the fact.
But if we want it to prevent crime....it can do that too.
Crime prevention can be as simple as making sure they have enough food to eat, earn a high enough wage they can support themselves, and get a proper education so they can further themselves in life and have a potential value to society. All these things reduce desperation and open up opportunities, reducing crime in the process. These are facts.
But instead the Norquists of the world tell us we have to eliminate all social programs, all regulations, all laws that protect the weak from the stronger, and leave everyone to their own individual skills and abilities, with no help from any outside sources. Instead of working as a community to better ourselves, we should treat each other with suspicion, as someone to be conquered and overcome. This of course will leave everyone at the mercy of the accident of birth, with those born to rich families, or those who are phsyically or mentally stronger, in charge, but hey...its your own fault you were born poor or weak, right?
Also known as "you don't comprehend what you are talking about".
Just a few posts further up, from user Bite The Pillow:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4631047&cid=45871303
Quote:
The article is not clear, but this is traditional investing via crowdsourcing. Selling securities or equity, like a normal IPO. This makes the same rules apply everywhere, and closes a loophole advantageous to people who could go the traditional route but decide not to.
Kickstarter, where you pre-order merchandise, does not seem to be affected.
Do you think the SEC should regulate investing any differently because it happens on the web? I'm assuming the answer is "oh, I misunderstood."
So in actuallity, this isnt SEC going after new minor shiny instead of their mandate. /. yet)
This actually IS the SEC performing their mandate.
Feel free to edit your post accordingly (oh wait...we can't do that on
It may interest you to know that BP isn't an american company, and in fact, the B is for British. As in British Petroleum.
believe me, there are a great many of christians who are equally upset at the hypocrisy.
as for YEC, it is a fairly recent creation (pun not intended). Most Christains dont actually believe it, though it gets all the attention lately.
my pet peeve is that, if in a country such as ours 80% of the population identifies as Christian (something like 55% Protestant and 25% Catholic), but politically the country is roughly (close enough) split 50/50 right and left, that means there are a considerable number of Christians who are and vote liberal/democrat.
but on slashdot (and seemingly in pop culture), the perception is that all christians are right wingnut zealots.
and that just aint true.
Your delusion is in thinking that science and faith are mutually exclusive. They aren't incompatible at all.
One is by definition physical, the other metaphysical.
The Ultimas still pretty much rock.
Mario...timeless.
Baldur's Gate
Planescape
Descent
Warcraft 2
Heretic/Hexen series
Sacrifice
Black & White
XCom
I dont know what you're playing, but these arent crappy games, even today, they are still stand the test of time.
YEAH!
CoD 2192439 > Super Mario World.
EA's NFL 2049 > Fifa 2001.
etc.
etc.
Why?
Because newer = better.
Always.
No game ever stands the test and exhibits timeless gameplay.
Ever.
Or maybe you're just a douche who feels the need to feel intellectually superior by putting others down because of their opinions and tastes in video games...
Actually ya, that seems much more likely.
met my fair share who are definitely fundamentalist, and want to do me a favor by barring me from my religion.
frankly they're no different from the people who want to do me a favor by saving my soul for me by converting me to their flavor.
what i actually want is of no consequence to either type.
you know what's a bigger assault on human dignity?
death.
torture.
maiming.
racism.
seriously dude, turn off the hyperbole machine.
because you have access to all the NSA and CIAs documents, because they always broadcast everything they do and may have prevented....
again devils advocate. but its easy, since you're so foolish, as with your previous "comments" on economic theory, also known as "I failed Econ 101, but here's what I think".
Realistically, bringing up the marathon bomber is silly. Knowing what we know about them, the NSA's surveillance would never have caught them. they both never did anything to bring them up on the radar, and the NSA's program is not yet the All Seeing Eye people make it out to be.
Not supporting it, just pointing out the hyperbole on Slashdot lately is reaching astronomical proportions lately, and the level of ration logical thought is decreasing inversely.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The 3000 dead at the WTC, the 10000 military dead, the hundreds of thousands more injured, the people on the other side....yes it's all insignificant to the idea of being watched. Being watched...that's the real threat.
Just one question though....how many people has being watched maimed or killed again?
Just a bit of devil's advocate. Im no fan of the snowden leaks. im no fan of the constitution being eroded.
But surveillance is not the most harmful thing in the world, and the idea that they might conceivably prevented the past 12 years of warfare is a noble one.
you would do well to cast your hyperbole aside and proceed to live in the real world, and make more reasonable statements.
also the notion that government is only a taker is the purest grade AA bullshit.
you statements are a flat contradiction to the most basic of first year economics classes.
and where did he say it is the whole of the economy? no where.
and you say your opinion comes form countless scientists? by that i must assume you dont mean many, but rather too few to be counted, as in zero.
It's simple math, and simple economics. In economics the Gov is on the opposite side of the equation from private business.
When the economy is flourishing, the gov doesnt need to spend much to promote growth. in fact its better off saving those revenues (which are larger due to the healthy economy) for a rainy day.
Then when the rainy day comes.....the government spends. business is hurting, so they arent spending. economic contraction happens. the government spending, promoting business, workers, infrastructure projects, etc, keeps money in the economy, limiting the contraction of the weak economy and making it healthier.
if you're of a biblical bent, in your bible you may remember the story of Joseph, he of the technicolor jacket. the who advised pharaoh during a time of plenty to set aside massive quantities of grain for the years of famine that were ahead. when the famine happened, the grain was released, and no one starved.
see? even the bible tells you the government should spend when the economy is poor to prop it up.
Oh please. a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote in this country.
There are no serious 3rd parties in this coutnry because of how our elections work. the two big parties havent been in danger from a 3rd party candidate for decades. In the 2012 election even the BEST performing 3rd party candidate only recieved 0.9% of the popular vote, and not a single electoral.
The only forseeable viable third party in this country is the soon to exist Tea Party, if they Republicans succesfully kick them out of the party. They probably won't though because they are still far too dependent on them to win elections. and as we've seen, ideals and message don't matter nearly as much as actually winning elections. IE, Winning > Integrity.
Want to make 3rd parties viable and get actual representitive representation in this country?
Then 4 things need to happen:
1- Kill the Electoral College.
2- Kill the First Past the Post voting system.
3- Kill all campaign contributions.
4- Kill gerrymandering.
trolls be trollin
Wow you are funny.
You've got the Fox news version of the story: a couple of minor facts, mixed with equal parts ignorance and outrage.
The Constitution is in effect, but there is no single interpretation, immutable and unchangable for all time. The Founder's wrote a document for their day. We no longer live in their day. Society has advanced. Attitudes and cultural mores have changed. We're reinterpreted core and founding principles to reflect the society of today. Remember that the USC is not, never was, and never will be, perfect. The goal is the creation of a "more perfect union", which carries the implication that that is an eternal struggle, for a noble goal that will never actually be attained.
No, not clearly a violation. In fact, if you knew anything you wold know that the ACA gives the adminstration large leeway in the execution of its precepts. Very few changes in the execution of a law actually requires Congressional approval first. Laws rarely state out a precise series of steps to be followed. It's more like a house: Congress may build the framework, but the Adminstration installs the wiring and pipes, puts up the drywall, paints the walls, and installs the furniture.
You included a dig at the Federal Reserve.....one of the most successful tools in our modern economy. Think about how common bank runs were prior to the creation of the FR. Now think about how rare they are since then. Banks used to fail. A lot. People would end up poor and broke, their money vanished. A lot. There is a regular reason people didnt trust banks back then, preferring mattresses. The FR solved all that, and helped the economy to perpetually grow: no longer would money sit idle, it could be loaned again via banks, to create worth and capital. This too helps stave off stagnation, recessions, etc. It's not foolproof, but its a helluva lot more stable than it was before the FR.
Beyond a few temporary spats, Congress has never not passed a budget. You could argue that the Continuin Resolutions dont count, but really, they do. They perform the task of funding hte government, even if they merely maintain the current status quo. Yes, ideally they would actually have a full debate, and real budget, and yes even the most recent compromise while called a budget is really just another CR, albeit for a much longer term. But they have still be funding the government. This has little to do with the Constitution though, and more to do with obstructionist politics.
The Surpreme Courts job is not to right every wrong, to get involved in every case, to settle everything how you think it should be. The USC is only interested in cases of a national interest. Cases that settle a clear and present legal question, that has implications not just for the persons involved, but potentially the entire nation.You complain about how they feel, yet that is EXACTLY what a Judge does; like complaining about airplanes flying. A Judge's job is to use his own judgement, ie how he feels, about a matter of law to make a decision, based ont he facts of a case weighed against prior legal precedent and established law. You've obviously never actually read an actual legal decision from the USC.
And as for the actual Citizens United decision, corporations CANNOT donate more than ordinary people. They do not get an exemption. The campaign contribution limits are still in force:
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22]
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect