New Rule: “One Corporation, Lots of Votes”

It’s sad but I’d go a step farther and say democracy died in November 08 when acorn and thugs helped steal a national election. Or in spring of 08 when they pushed Obama on us even though Hillary really won the primaries. Sigh.

This is really a nail in the coffin.

..the other side.
BTW, Pat.  Great Toon!

And now an argument in favor of the court’s decision.  The existing law WAS unconstitutional.  It needed to be overturned.

Read this from the WSJ

Keep in mind that McGraw-Hill, Bantham, ect. are corporations.

In last year’s oral argument for Citizen’s United, the Court got a preview of how far a ban on corporate-funded speech could reach. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart explained that, under McCain-Feingold, the government had the authority to “prohibit the publication” of corporate-funded books that called for the election or defeat of a candidate.

Books that we like (and dislike) here at NQ could be taken off of our Amazon column to the right, during election years.

That was a shock and awe moment at the Court, as it also should have been to a Washington press corps that has too often been a cheerleader for campaign-spending limits. Mr. Stewart was telling a truth already familiar to campaign-finance lawyers and the speech police at the Federal Election Commission. Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky recalled yesterday that in 2004 the agency investigated whether a book written by George Soros critical of George W. Bush violated campaign laws. Liberals as much as conservatives should worry about laws that allow such investigations.

We did not like union workers getting a 40% tax break under the Health Care Bill and offering certain rights to some selected companies is not quite fair.

The Court’s opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold’s arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper—News Corp. or the New York Times—retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. “At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue,” wrote Justice Kennedy. “This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment.”

Woman.  I agree.  The McF bill had arbitrary holes and most people always knew it.  That is why it was not enforced as written.  But why have a bill that the FEC won’t enforce?  This will take some thought and, if congress would just slow down its pace on every issue before them and put some effort and bi-party thinking into it, they could craft a sound bill that takes this “personhood” status away from everything that does not breathe.

The “Bill of Rights” was written to apply to “The People”  corporations are a legal fiction, ie fictitious people and in my opinion are not real people.

Oh Well…….

Bush. LMAO.

Great work Pat, but I’m leaning to the right on this one.
We just had a presidential candidate spend one billion dollars in an election, and much of it was corporate money.
My understanding of this ruling is that money does not got to campaigns, but is used to advance the position of the spender.
At least consumers will know the source, as opposed to the under-the-table system we have now.

But, at least with media (including books) there is some transparency.  We know who they are and what they tend to do.  Corporations will hide.

Because six corporations control most of our news media. They already are the deciders.
 
In 2004, six huge corps–Time Warner, Disney (ABC), Murdoch’s News Corp. , Bertelsmann of German, Viacom (formerly CBS), and General Electric (NBC).
 
GE sold NBC to Viacom.

I wonder if there aren’t benefits to this decision? I mean, we all know corporations simply use back doors to purchase themselves a politician anyway. Now when somebody is bought and paid for it will be obvious by the logo they’re wearing. Senator so and so brought to you by Goldman Sachs.

Also documentaries like Farenheit 911 may have been banned during an election year under this rule. I think MM’s film would qualify as an anti Bush film. What happens to the doucmentaries designed to inform the public if this law had stood up? Would they have only been able to be made if they only accepted private funding?

And lastly, it’s kind of ironic having Democrats, liberals, all upset because McCain’s baby was just shot down by the SC. Geesh, if you liked his campaign reform ideas, why didn’t people support him?

So much for tea parties…… 

Yes it does read “…freedom of the press…”  but the First Amendment specifically gave the “press” as an institution this protection.  If they wanted to give this protection to corporations they would have treated it as “the press” by saying it specifically.

Corporations were not created until later as “fictions persons”  if the founder’s wanted this protection to non real persons it would say it.

As an example; if they wanted Oil Corporations to have this protection they would have specified it as they did “the press” because newspapers held a special place for the dissemination of information (speech).

However, what do I know.  Just having a little fun.

Yttik: Why didn’t McCain’s “baby” pass? Because the fix was in. Just as there was no way Hilllary would get the Dem nod at the convention McCain was the Bob Dole of this election. The only difference is that he didn’t lose by as wide a margin as Dole.

When Bush “won” 51% to 49%” everyone said he didn’t have a mandate. Obama won by the same margin yet his opponent is a loser with no support?

After all we know that madams  pimp out their daughters (see Hillary) when other candidates have their adult daughters campaigning but are not accused of the same. That’s if they’re not painted as wh*res,  c*nts, or b*tches (see roundtable discussion by pundits on national TV discussing whether or not Hillary was a b*tch) I was appalled but not a peep from so-called Democrats, Progressives, or Liberals.

I’m more concerned with The Sumpreme Court affirming corporate “personhood”.  Now Corporate America has free reign over elections and everyone knows it.

Some of us have been around for a good long while and we’ve never seen anything like this. But I guess it’s okay as long as it benefits the party in power. The Democrats promised to be different and listen to the will of the People of the Untied States of America unlike the GWB bunch. Not so much I guess now. 

Candymarl,
Good point on the person-hood but as much as they want us to believe it, I’m not sure they ever really said corporations are people.

They have said that they (corporations) would be teated as “fictitious persons” whatever that means.

In essence I agree with what you think.
In order to really get into this it could take a substantial amount of research as well as thought.

But, I also don’t like it and think they got it wrong.

Third party or second revolution whichever comes first. I think a third party could be formed as a superset from the other two parties to begin with. The third party would set a platform and promote candidates from either party that followed. Eventually, once established the third party could break free.

Democracy is a process by which people are free to choose the man who will get the blame. (Laurence J. Peter)

Like I said anyone who took the office after Bush and Chaney gone done with it was just asking for a butt kicking….And I don’t care who it was going to be..Clinton, McCain, Obama….they were going to get the blame….

Yeah, but when his advisors told him that it wouldn’t look good when he ran for President, he voted against Roberts. Self-interest trumps all for Obama.

The first two words that popped into my head after I read the original news story were, “Max Headroom”. If you haven’t seen it, you should. Take a look and see what the world looks like when it’s controlled by corporations. You can see them here..

Money is not speech. All the propaganda in the world won’t feed my family. A well educated voting public can make a difference.

You can bet K street rents just went up 10%
Soros must be happy as a clam at high tide about it.
 I have yet to read the opinion of the Court, but as a practical matter money isn’t the problem. It’s the people using it.
Considering that this country elected BO Industies Inc. wth the law in place, what difference will “unlimited” cash going to make?
What do think is important is knowing where the money comes from and who is behind it. Similar to ACORN having a “House in New Orelans”, I do not think that freedom of speech (with money) can be coupled with any “privacy”.

Slightly OT but SOS Clinton gave a speech on “Internet Freedom” Thursday that is relevent to you point. There many pressure points exposed to manipulation in the 21st century.

Thank you so much for this, Pat – it is a shocking decision, for sure.  It is just hard to believe where we are now…

So many great comments on this post!  Now, I have to READ the decision, to give (R3A) my 2-cents’ worth.

Rich.  I think the toon is quite on target.

When did and artificial entity become a real person?

When that entity could be prosecuted like an individual.  We streached the boundaries when we found it easier to go after companies in criminal complaints than it was to pierce the corproate shield to get to the owners.  We created this problem by incrementally treating corporations as people.  We gave them the right, as a collection of individuals, to own copyrights.  We gave them the right to defend themselves in our courts – that were set up for people.  We did this.

We can fix this.  I am not a fan of any politician.  I think Ron Paul speaks truth and I think that Dennis (forgive my spelling) Kusinich does also.  

This sp decision is not left or right.  Should Soros be shut up?  Shoudl GE be shut up?  Who should be shut up?

I do not know the answer to that question.  

Not on the same subject, but listen to what Obi said about seniors in today’s Ohio’s town-hall!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xw9rs-ClsQ

can we make a law that all congress critters have to wear shirts reading
” owned and operated by” they can put in the corp name with marker depending who is giving them orders on what bill.
After all this is a transparent government.

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

Your toon makes an elegant statement, Pat.

With a 5 to 4 decision, there was obvious disagreement among the judges.  it could have gone the other way with a different mix on the bench.  Congress can legislate a different result if there is sufficient public pressure on them to take action.   Then the Court can rule on the constitutionality of a new law if a case is brought before them.  The issue may not be settled yet.  Time will tell and we can see how the effects of the decision play out.

I don’t understand the big howl.  George Soros and unions have been donating for years.  That money is endless.  Where is the outrage at them

Here’s a link that gives some historical background when corporations were granted “personhood”, which was in the late 1800′s by a legally dubious Supreme Court procedure, and ironically based on the 14th Amendment intended to free the slaves:

http://ourpla.net/cgi/pikie?CorporatePersonhood

Yep, he sure did. I can remember if it was Roberts or Alito, but the dems were talking about a fillibuster. BO was for it before he was against it. Apparentsly adviser thouught it would not be a good move if he ran for POTUS.  See, everything is politics.  

Despite all the evidence that was available–NQ did a fantastic job of informing–most people think BO’s campaign was financed by small internet donations.

Remember how quick he was to renege on accepting public financing?

Why was he yelling?

BINGO!

Your right on Harp.  Two sets of rules

If companies are going to operate in this country, therefore creating jobs, they will expect a voice in government.
That has always been the case, but much of the democratic agenda now is to solicit their money and then pass contrary legislation(except earmarks).
There will not be a flood of money unleashed, for stock holders will hold companies accountable.
All the uproar is because republicans can now use the same methods as democratic unions and Move-On.

The Cap and Trade legislation, for example, is predicted to costs large numbers of jobs and raise energy prices, which fall directly on the backs of the public.
Think you can fight city hall?

“If companies are going to operate in this country, therefore creating jobs, they will expect a voice in government.”
 
Corporations are collections of individuals and do have a say. Now, though, those who are part of the corporation have more than one say. Unions are also collections of individuals who have a say as individuals.

The premise is flawed and the argument moot. Corporations and unions are not the individuals envisioned by our founders. The ruling is wrong on its face.

No matter how thinly one slices bovine excrement, it is still bullshit.

Obama rebelled against the this SCOTUS ruling so that he can look ‘populous.’ Is he ethically able to rebel against a SCOTUS ruling? He is the President, isn’t he? He is sworn to uphold the Constitutional system, isn’t he? Can that rebellion and his instructions to Administration to devise ways to defeat the law an impeachable offense? Maybe not, but it sures looks like.

I’m all for arguing a policy on its merits. But when you start redefining words to win the argument, everyone loses.

stupee YES indeed!

But that defies the definition of both individual and corporation. Words have meaning and are necessary for complete, unfettered, and coherent communication. This ruling violates that fundamental (and non-legal) requirement for the exchange of information.

“Obama said that a president should be able to pick the one he wanted.”

Evidently the crack “constitutional scholar” missed the part about confirmation by the Congress.

Of course, debating Roberts’ nomination seriously would’ve required that Barry do some work.  We all know what he would’ve said to that.  “Can’t I just vote “present”?

Ok, Let’s get something straight.  Democracy is ruling by mob vote.  (Majority says what goes regardless of individual rights).  Republic is ruling by law (Equal protection under the law).  The founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.  
The word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.  This is NOT a parsing of the words but a fundamental diffference in ideas of how to govern.  We have lost our way as a country and until we get back to the original genius of the constitution we are doomed to erode our rights into oblivion.   I don’t know about you, but I pledge allegiance to the Republic, not the Democracy.
So, If Democracy is dead…..then GOOD!

Ahem, Julliezzz, the mob does rule. The neocon mob was just replaced by the progressive mob due to voting by the mob represented by the electorate.

This is a Constitutional Republic by being run by a (the) mob.

I don’t disagree that we are under a tyranny of two tyrannical Mobs.  I only disagree with the above picture showing Democracy as Dead.  On the contrary, I feel we are witnessing the death of the Republic.  

But I think the electorate isn’t given real choice in these elections.  We are given rotten with milk vs rotten chocolate milk.  It’s rotten regardless and not too much real difference in unconstitutional behavior.

I feel we are in need of a third party.  Much like when Lincoln ran for Prez.  The Whig party split in two because of slavery and the part that split off became Republicans. Lincoln won as a new Republican. I think it’s time members of both parties split off to form a viable third.  If we don’t, we are truly doomed to live in tyranny

I don’t disagree that we are under a tyranny of two tyrannical Mobs.  I only disagree with the above picture showing Democracy as Dead.  On the contrary, I feel we are witnessing the death of the Republic.    
 
But I think the electorate isn’t given real choice in these elections.  We are given rotten white milk vs rotten chocolate milk.  It’s rotten regardless and not too much real difference in unconstitutional behavior.  
 
I feel we are in need of a third party.  Much like when Lincoln ran for Prez.  The Whig party split in two because of slavery and the part that split off became Republicans. Lincoln won as a new Republican. I think it’s time members of both parties split off to form a viable third.  If we don’t, we are truly doomed to live in tyranny

I agree, Juliezzz. But until the electorate demands real choice, they will get none. The people still have the power, if only they would use it. That requires that people ignore wedge issues, ignore style and format, and focus on content and substance. Had that happened during the last election cycle, we wouldn’t be in the mess we find ourselves in currently.

I won’t hold my breath, though, waiting for an epiphany on the part of the herd, as they just follow the “bull”.

As usual he didn’t answer the question of why congress gave themselves a raise and Social Security did not have a Cost of Living Adjustment.  But he did get cute with the diaper and voting quips.  What a jerk to make light of a serious subject.  What irks me is that people laughed–they should have booed.

Juliezz, you make a very valid point and as much as I like Pat’s artwork it should be the “The Republic” and not “Democracy”.

“I pledge allegiance…and to the Republic for which it stands…” 

Maybe as you and Ferd somewhere on this page referenced the meaning of words-we should hold true to the founding intent.

Administrator, it is difficult to follow the placement of these comments. Much better the old (founding) way.

Still enamored with this site, so lets tweak this–we can do better!

That would be a Century not two decades–who’s smart now.

On Jim Leher last night, Mark Shields (who I always enjoy) said that this was the most treacherous Supreme Court decision in his lifetime. 

Another point made (maybe by Brooks) was that corporations will use their newfound muscle to destroy small businesses because they don’t like any competition. 

Please watch the Jim Leher “Brooks and Shields” segment and other Public Broadcasting stations that have weighed in.  You will see the death of democracy told better than I ever could.

I think holding true to the founding intent is paramount to our survival.  That’s my true oppinion. 

Look up the Contenental Congress of 2009.  That’s what that whole thing was all about

OK, will take a listen. Thanks for the heads up. It should be obvious to every person with half of a brain, a corporation is not a person and therefore, it is not entitled to the same rights as an individuals…but by the same token the Supreme Court has already held in decisions going back decades that the First Amendment does protect commercial speech by corporations.

Yeah, I, too, liked the indentation of comments. Apparently the new system allows only one level of indent.

“Another point made (maybe by Brooks) was that corporations will use their newfound muscle to destroy small businesses because they don’t like any competition.”

Exactly and that will be able to happen because the large corporations have more “free speech” than small businesses, which in turn have more “free speech” than individuals.

The 5 boneheads on the SC who came up with this monumentally stupid ruling should be impeached for cause or else forced to take remedial English until they get it right.

Katmoon,
I should have written “nom de plume” to be more exact, make Ferd smile and give credence to Strunk’s “Elements of Style” i.e. plain English.  Oops French!

Commercial speech does not equal money, except in the loopy SC, where definitions are made up out of whole cloth, centuries of meaning via written definition (dictionaries) are ignored, and communication becomes a farce.

Well, there is an election coming up, make appropriate tee shirts and wear them to the Congresscritters’ rallies and events. Perhaps get some cheap magnetic signs with the names and logos of their corporate sponsors and stick them on the candidates’ cars so everyone can see who sponsors them. Have someone follow the car so they can retrieve the signs after the critter or his handlers fling them into the bushes. Then do it again at the next stop. And take pics of the car with logos, etc. before the handlers take them off. Then send them to all the media with the explanation that you believe in truth in advertising, especially in politics.

If that happens around the country with multiple candidates, the message will get through. And the new Congresscritters will pay attention to it.

passing through,

Appreciate the link, but you know, after listening to the video I came to the realization that these lawyers aren’t smart but SMART ALECS.

What happened to common sense? Thomas Pain tried to warn us but we are so wrapped up in our own (no-one specifically) feeling of worth that we’ll interpret anything differently just to win a point (continue to argue).
And in the process fuck ourselves.
Making love is different than fucking.

N.B. note I wrote “these lawyers”

Pat, maybe it is that the words Democracy and Republic have been confused and interchanged haphazardly in the past and has made it difficult for us to understand what kind of government we have. From Vattel from “Law of Nations”
§ 3. Of the several kinds of government.

If the body of the nation keep in its own hands the empire, or the right to command, it is a Popular government, a Democracy; if it intrust it to a certain number of citizens, to a senate, it establishes an Aristocratic republic; finally, if it confide the government to a single person, the state becomes a Monarchy. (11)

So because we intrust a certain number of citizens to run a government which is bound by a constitution, we are a REPUBLIC and thank God we are.  If only we would hold the government to the laws of the Constitution we would soon right the ship

A Republic has its Achilles heel, though, as it represents rule by the few, becoming an oligarchy in reality if term limits are not imposed. Which system is the best is a matter of opinion and all have their drawbacks.

Ferd you’re too smart for me (kidding) but consider that Republic means (I may not be up on my Latin) “The person is King”

Have a good one

Point taken, AC.

You have a good one, too.

You miss the point, which is that unions and corporations are collections of individuals who already have free speech. Moreover, money is not speech by any stretch of the imagination. It is nonsense and gobbledegook.

-

That’s right Ferd, money is not speech.  Even  the Beatles sang “I need Money”  they already had speech.

Sorry, but Stevens was wrong.  Corps NEVER have been given the rights of individuals until now.  This is a fallacy that goes back to some fool judge who made a comment on this in the 1800′s.  And from then on, this has been assumed, but never truly legalized.  Thom Hartmann covered this in his book.

WHAT we could do, though, is to form a PEOPLE’S CORPORATION with a couple million members and make our own damn attack ads.

They can speak all they want guest. Money, though, and its spending is not speech. Coherency is lost on the SC and the supporters of this complete fabrication and fraud. Making up new meanings for words is the last refuge of a side with a losing argument.

Money, for the last time, is not speech, irrespective of how a myopic court rules.

“It isn’t money, but can any organization or person speak and be heard effectively without it ?” 
  
So now it is changed from speech to effective speaking and associated hearing. Define effective. Was my comment effective enough to make you change your definition in midstream? No money changed hands. All I did was state a very simple, easy to follow argument from wrods and their definitions.  
  
And YOU changed definitions on me. Next you’ll be defining green-cheese as moon-stuff to prove the veracity of an old fairy tale.

Except in Gaza.

That’s right donjo anytime anyone tries that stuff just ask them to cite the relevant case or law that says a corporation is a person–not personhood or personlike or fictitious person but person.

They can’t do it because it’s a legal fiction.

Some OT, since the “political hit piece” genre was outlawed with the passage of McCain Fiengold and the lawsuit was because someone made a hit piece on Hillary Clinton with “90 days” of an election”,  and now it  is over turned by the Supremes, I guess I can start collecting them again.

Donjo’s remarks are a rare glimpse into an aspect of this nations future that may come to pass. Interesting.

If the corporation obeys the laws, pays its taxes -why cant they put their cases forward ?

Unions do it . religious groups do it . 

They only have to answer to their stockholders.

Anyhow it happens -better to be out in the open.

My view as well hot librarian!
A tax-exempt church with a 1000 members has free speech!
That a corporation with 1000 employees, taxed on the local, state, and federal level should be prohibited from expression in the political sphere is unrepresentative, in my opinion.
Liberals have the billion dollar man in the White House, yet now cry foul!

How about Multi-national Corporations with many stockholders from other countries–should they have a voice (money/speech) in who we elect?

Define individual and person and you’ll have your answer. Can corporations/unions run for office as a singular entity? Can they serve the country? Can they vote? Can they be jailed?

If the answer (as a unit) to any of those (and other) questions is “no”, then they do not have the rights of citizenship as they are not citizens.  It is nonsensical and a corruption of our common language. Your argument is fallacious because it equivocates on “individual” and ”person”.

There is a term for this sort of fracturing of the English language–it is called doublespeak.

LMAO. They may as well define this new right as being the collective or Borg. Resistance is futile.

They are Landrew (another star Trek episode where nonbelievers were absorbed).

Well, AC, the answer has to be “yes”. If you can’t win with the support of legal citizens, make them all legal citizens through the collective. Stalin and Mao would have been so proud of this court.

Well Ferd, all this collective stuff make me feel mucky, time for a shower.

Have an great day.

Mucky, for sure. You, have a great day, too, AC.

Interesting take on the 5th, for Corporations:

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,
“The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend V. “The word ‘witness’ in the constitutional text limits the relevant category of compelled incriminating communications to those that are ‘testimonial’ in character.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000). A corporation does not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, as the privilege is a personal privilege enjoyed by natural individuals.  (explaining that the “constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is essentially a personal one, applying only to natural individuals”).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=docket&no=052193

Interesting take on the 5th, for Corporations:

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,
“The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend V. “The word ‘witness’ in the constitutional text limits the relevant category of compelled incriminating communications to those that are ‘testimonial’ in character.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000). A corporation does not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, as the privilege is a personal privilege enjoyed by natural individuals.  (explaining that the “constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is essentially a personal one, applying only to natural individuals”).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=docket&no=052193

Sorry that last Guest was me, I forget, that my name doesn’t stay in the space provided, sorry. :-[

Too political?
Would that apply to the van and bus loads who were transported to the caucuses?

I voted for McCain.  But I thought it was beyond ironic that he ended up facing an opponent who went on to make history by spending the most of ANY presidential candidate before.

This fact alone was a simple illustration of the ineffectiveness of McCain-Feingold.  It’s undoubtedly poor legislation.

I’ve stated here a few times that I support public campaign financing with no loopholes whatsoever, and no other money allowed.  I don’t think it will ever happen, for various reasons.  Even if it did, the FEC is obviously so inept an enforcer that campaign finance laws would likely still be flouted.

After the court’s ruling the other day, I’ve been giving the subject more thought.  To be honest, I really wouldn’t like it if, in the last election, Obama — who I didn’t support — got as much public funding as McCain, who I did.  Public financing would prevent me from only supporting candidates I favor.  

Bottom line — I’m not so certain of the best solution anymore.

I don’t think ANY collection of individuals is a person. Assume for the sake of argument that a draft is needed. Should we draft an entire corporation? Silly isn’t it? But then, you’ve defined the collective as an individual, which means they are subject collectively to a draft. Sorry, but the definition requires it.

Hell, simply look beyond the legal gobbledegook to fundamental issues of grammar and logic. Defining down as up does not mean that the laws of physics change and you won’t still fall if you step off the precipice. This is an issue that goes to the foundation of the transfer of information from one person to another, i.e., communication.

You don’t have to chose your corporation, you can become your own corporation. I have a corporation, an LLC, that includes my horse farm, etc. So I am a corporation. Not a big one, but under the new ruling, I can, in my corporate guise, run ads for candidates that cost more than is allowed for individual donations. So can you.

we are Professional? with the highest quality service.on-line manufacturer supplies that wholesales all kinds ghd hair straighteners ,GHD Hair Straightener is the world’s famous brands and chi hair straighteners. Our CHI FLAT IRON,To give consumers convenient,at the same time care of everyone’s hair.CHI hair straightener,?Its use is very simple,in case of leakage will automatically power off to protection of everyone’s personal safety.GHD straighteners are popular all over the world with high quality, ?When the temperature reaches a maximum,it will not stop flashing the lights, reminding everyone.competitive price,In addition, the design was very nice, very lightweight.fast delivery.Dry autumn, is the hair of the most vulnerable physiological periods.shop online for genuine & authentic hair straingtener,Welcome to visite our website. http://www.hairupstyler.com