Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well until the SC butchered the 14th Amendment, INDIVIDUAL STATES could make all the laws they desired to restrict the above admonitions that originally only applied to actions of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. It's called federalism, and it died after the Civil War.

And the US government itself, no??? In a way, I love the can of worms SCOTUS has just opened!

----------

Print the money and give it to the people.

Confusing The prohibition of using money to buy political favors and positions with free speech is purile.

I am not advocating censorship. Well it is censorship if you think that prohibiting bribery is "censorship". If you think buying a congressional seat is okay, then yes, I am advocating censorship.

If on the other hand, you believe in freedom, then bribery must be illegal and wrong. Regulatory Capture must me illegal and wrong. Freedom of speech is not cart blanche to do whatever you want, as long as you have enough money....

America was not built on that ideal. America was built on the ideal that all men are created equal. Rich men and poor men.

Without giving the poor an equal standing in the podium of political discourse, then we fail as a nation.

And rembember, poor is a relative term. At 7 figures/year, a man is "poor" if you compare him to Wells Fargo.

----------

No one is qualified to make prohibitions concerning speech. NO ONE. Most especially CONgress. Which is why there was and is a need for a First Amendment in the first place. The fact that some in life can afford a bigger megaphone than others merely means that life is unfair. So get over it.

----------

They assume an authority which is nowhere so dangerous as in the hands of those who have folly and presumption enough to fancy themselves fit to exercise it. --Adam Smith

Jstanley,

My point is that you guys just post the 1st Amendment and say wow how can't 4 judges understand it says the govt cannot restrict speech at all. That is utterly stupid from the examples I showed you.

And then you post the gem above this post that no one is qualified to restrict any speech. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ABSOLUTE. Just because the thing reads as an sbsolute does not mean it is

Those with the most money (corporations)have the loudest voices and the most influence over the sheeple. How does that help our republic again?
A corporation is not a living thing and the founding fathers never intended such idiocy as we have today of giving them a right to free speech.

Wis/Mn:

Quote:

Thank you 1lumpsum.

many here are afraid of corporate free speech.

Are they as afraid of the press?

If you limit one type of free speech where do you draw the line that prevents you from limiting someone else's free speech?

You CANT be serious?

THE "PRESS" IS OWNED BY WHO ?

----------

Paying other people interest to borrow money from ourselves that we don't have...... Asimov

It is quite possible that ALL debt in FRB with fiat currency is insoluble

I think, if nothing else, we can now truly appreciate the complexity of this issue. From one side of the spectrum, the black letter of the law and its immutability, to the other side of the sprectrum, which maintains that we must devine the intent and spirit of the Founding Fathers and apply that interpretation to a reality that they could not have possibly foreseen given the profound societal changes wrought by the two centuries since the Constitution was inked. Fascinating. There are no easy answers, but many damn good points to be gleaned.

What I do know is that there is no way that the FF could have predicted the sorry state the Fourth Estate has sank to. It has repudiated and capitulated its historical role as watchdog, and has instead become the fox: It is owned by those who own the very people it was supposed to guard against: our elected officials. This is a very perverse situtation, and is more an affront to free speech than anything I can imagine.

Sorry, I have no solution for this.

----------

The Truth is right here... err, wait. Well, it WAS there just moments ago!

Quote:

A corporation is not a living thing and the founding fathers never intended such idiocy as we have today of giving them a right to free speech

I agree. When do we appoint a board of government censors to approve what the New York Times prints?

I'll make it simple. This country would do just fine with limits on so called corporate speech. There, that was easy.

Quote:

You CANT be serious?

THE "PRESS" IS OWNED BY WHO ?

Exactly!

You can't limit them either according to the constitution.

So if you think the constitution is in error, work to amend it.

BTW-good luck with that.

Quote:

The fact that some in life can afford a bigger megaphone than others merely means that life is unfair. So get over it.

Attaboy comrade JStanley01......

----------

Paying other people interest to borrow money from ourselves that we don't have...... Asimov

It is quite possible that ALL debt in FRB with fiat currency is insoluble

Quote:

Are they as afraid of the press?

If you limit one type of free speech where do you draw the line that prevents you from limiting someone else's free speech?

I think you need to read the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 'press' is giving explicit rights under our Constitution, no other 'corporation' is mentioned however. Wonder why that is.

Quote:

I think you need to read the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes please read it.

Opus, what's the rule for when a corporation is 'press' or not?

Speech is not an absolute, and the Founders never saw it as such. Wouldn't hurt to read Judge Bork's. "The Anti Trust Paradox" for further clarification.

Quote:

I defend the right of SEIU, as well as GE, to develop and write postion papers all day long on ideas and problems that interest them.

I reject outright, the idea that any entity spend money to promote those ideas.

Pablo, what does GE or the SEIU do with these position papers? Do they put them in a desk drawer in the hopes that if it's a good idea it will somehow float out and gain traction?

I am honestly not trying to be sarcastic here. I just don't understand how any position can be introduced into the public discourse if no money is spent getting the position out there.

If Fox runs and discusses the issue, then that is corporate money floating the position. Ditto if CNN or 60 Minutes runs and discusses the SEIU or GE position.

Quote:

I'm grabbing my popcorn for this because the opportunity for transparency on the influence of corporate to politics is going to be Huge, it's no longer under the table anymore! Also I believe that both left right and center are about to be blindsided by all the reprocutions of this due to monetary influence vs the moral standard. We are inching closer and closer to a true revolution and corporate warfare to the likes no one has ever seen before.

Agree Promomag!

----------

Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?

Quote:

You can't limit them either according to the constitution.

So if you think the constitution is in error, work to amend it.

BTW-good luck with that.

Jeeesus..... I give up

----------

Paying other people interest to borrow money from ourselves that we don't have...... Asimov

It is quite possible that ALL debt in FRB with fiat currency is insoluble

Wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote, Karl. Campaign donations look to me a form of bribery. Outlaw funds from big business, put a limit on the amount any one individual can donate, and maybe even go a step further and cap limits on lobbying efforts. Corporatism is, IMO, the biggest problem you guys face. But stifling corporate speech isnt the answer. Ending their money train is.

Striker754: The subject is political speech, which is what the legislation that was struck down restricted. If the First Amendment doesn't protect political speech, what exactly does it protect?

----------

They assume an authority which is nowhere so dangerous as in the hands of those who have folly and presumption enough to fancy themselves fit to exercise it. --Adam Smith

One unintended consequence of KD's proposed restrictions is that it would appear to limit the efforts of a third party to gain traction and grow. For a third party to grow, they need to 'colonize' states where the party doesn't have a good foothold. But, since you are limiting contributions only to individuals in a constituency, then how will the party's candidates in a new state effectively raise money? If you say the party could help them, then aren't you creating a loophole: namely, non-constituents from other states could give money to the 'party' which in turn would be channeled to the candidate?

@Xpanda:

"Corporatism is, IMO, the biggest problem you guys face."

And we are immune here?

----------

The Truth is right here... err, wait. Well, it WAS there just moments ago!

Quote:

So what?

You have representatives in Congress. They are your voice. Elect them well.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

You feel that you should only be able to donate to political campaigns of people that directly represent you, under penalty of being a felon otherwise. You feel that donating money to political campaigns is not "free speech".

I recognize that all Representatives and Senators make decisions that directly affect everyone, not just those in their districts. Thus I recognize that it is in my best interests to have people elected, whether or not they represent me, who are in line with my way of thinking...and I should be able to donate to anyone's election campaign without fear of the government arresting me. I recognize that giving money to political campaigns is free speech on MY part, whether or not they use it for payroll, campaign ads, or flushing it down the toilet.


I just find it amazing that you feel someone should be a felon, because they donated money to a candidate who doesn't directly represent them.

Quote:

The 'press' is giving explicit rights under our Constitution, no other 'corporation' is mentioned however. Wonder why that is.

Do Michael Moore's Corporations qualify as Press? Why is his greatly amplified, corporate produced speech protected?

----------

Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?

Quote:

You feel that you should only be able to donate to political campaigns of people that directly represent you, under penalty of being a felon otherwise. You feel that donating money to political campaigns is not "free speech".

No, I believe that a public employee should not be able to accept money from anyone they do not actually represent.

Repeating a lie does not make it true and is a dishonest tactic. I can and will put a stop to that.

----------