FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

Forums: Legal, Politics, Scotus, Law, Freedom Of Speech
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The McCain - Feingold raping of the First Amendment
has been thrown out by the USSC this morning !

Free speech is restored, even before elections !!!!!

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

David

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 17,028 • Replies: 310

[+4] - Green Witch - 01/21/2010I'm not so sure we can point our finger at any one party. Goldman-Saks gave more money to the Democrats this past election than to the Republicans. Corporations give money to the candidates who...
[+4] - Thomas - 01/22/2010[quote="Cycloptichorn"]The problem is, the NRA isn't a person and shouldn't have the same rights a person does. [/quote] I don't see how this distinction makes a difference. Even if the...
[+4] - Thomas - 01/23/2010[quote="parados"]The only restriction was the corporation couldn't speak using corporate funds.[/quote] And how is [i]that[/i] distinction justified by the difference between corporate...
[+4] - OCCOM BILL - 01/23/2010[quote="dyslexia"] ah yes, The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices. * $2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate --...
[+3] - Cycloptichorn - 01/21/2010Snort If one were to outline the problems with our electoral system, I highly doubt that 'not enough corporate cash' would have been on the list. What a travesty. Cycloptichorn
[+3] - Cycloptichorn - 01/21/2010[quote] It is a travesty that the anti-freedom liberals on the USSC voted to stifle us. [/quote] The problem is, the NRA isn't a person and shouldn't have the same rights a person does. It's...
[+3] - OCCOM BILL - 01/21/2010[quote="parados"] [quote]There shouldnâ��t be. In these United States the Supreme Court of the land, NOT the legislature has the final say... and short of a constitutional...
[+3] - engineer - 01/22/2010You're ducking the argument. It's a proven fact that if you have dramatically more money, you can get your argument out, you can smother the other candidates' arguments, you can control the spin,...
[+3] - engineer - 01/22/2010[quote="OmSigDAVID"] What I care about [b]MOST[/b] is that the censorship is over. Special Interest Groups can freely communicate with their members telling them which politician has...
[+3] - OCCOM BILL - 01/22/2010[quote="Cycloptichorn"] [quote] 1. Corporate Personhood is not a figment of his imagination. (Research a little before digging deeper.) [/quote] Bill, I understand that 'corporate...

@OmSigDAVID,

Could you please provide a link that is actually a link?

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/21/828137/-SCOTUS-Overturns-Ban-on-Corporate-Political-Expenditures

0 Replies

Snort

If one were to outline the problems with our electoral system, I highly doubt that 'not enough corporate cash' would have been on the list.

What a travesty.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If one were to outline the problems with our electoral system, I highly doubt that 'not enough corporate cash' would have been on the list.

I agree. I can't see this being a good thing.

I just don't understand the logic behind allowing corporations and groups to do the marketing for selected candidates. How can a candidate not be beholden to whoever paid his/her way into office?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If one were to outline the problems with our electoral system, I highly doubt that 'not enough corporate cash' would have been on the list.

I agree. I can't see this being a good thing.

I just don't understand the logic behind allowing corporations and groups to do the marketing for selected candidates. How can a candidate not be beholden to whoever paid his/her way into office?

There is no way whatsoever that this won't be the actual result. The reasoning used by the majority here was specious and ridiculous, and what more, represents Judicial Activism - something the right-wing constantly carps about.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There is no way whatsoever that this won't be the actual result. The reasoning used by the majority here was specious and ridiculous, and what more, represents Judicial Activism - something the right-wing constantly carps about.

So what's their argument FOR this? I just don't get it. Apparently it's seen as "free speech", but that just doesn't make any sense to me. Corporations can always say whatever they want, but why are campaign contributions treated as "speech"?

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

And I don't understand why corporations have constitutional rights at all. They are not citizens. It seems like guidance of corporate behavior falls directly to Congress.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

So what's their argument FOR this?

Those who, like David, claim to be 'libertarians' would argue that any entity, be it an individual or a corporation, has the right to spend its money wherever and however it sees fit.

Quote:

I just don't get it.

Of course you don't. You're a decent, reasonable human being, not a politician or so-called 'libertarian.'

Quote:

Apparently it's seen as "free speech", but that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Nor does it make any sense to any reasonable human being with even a rudimentary command of the English language. Bribery of potential government members has nothing whatever to do with 'free speech.' But I certainly wouldn't expect our befuddled firend David to understand this.

1 Reply

What is truly disturbing is that your political speech as a private citizen is limited. You are restricted in the amount you can give to any particular candidate.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

And I don't understand why corporations have constitutional rights at all. They are not citizens. It seems like guidance of corporate behavior falls directly to Congress.

I'm not a historian of that era, but my guess would be that the robber barons had to be bought off back when modern Corporate laws were passed, the same way they have to be bought off today.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

Those who, like David, claim to be 'libertarians' would argue that any entity, be it an individual or a corporation, has the right to spend its money wherever and however it sees fit.

Ah, I see. So to "libertarians" this is seen simplistically as an infringement on equality and rights (of the corporation or the group).

But I don't see why corporations or groups should necessarily have the same rights as individuals. I don't think the constitution was written with that intent. Is there anything in the constitution which implies that group entities should be treated as individuals? If they were, then shouldn't they also be allowed to vote like an individual? And if they can vote like individuals, and they are composed of individuals, then doesn't that screw up the idea of one-person-one-vote?

0 Replies

Why would anyone be happy about this? Basically, money is now considered speech. Money talks and those with the most money will have the biggest voices. Policy can now be legally bought and corporate giants are given carte blanche to buy all they can. So much for our lovely Republic and the ideals of democracy.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Green Witch wrote:

Why would anyone be happy about this? Basically, money is now considered speech. Money talks and those with the most money will have the biggest voices. Policy can now be legally bought and corporate giants are given carte blanche to buy all they can. So much for our lovely Republic and the ideals of democracy.

Republicans are happy about this, because they think it will directly lead to more money in their pockets, through allowing Corporations to pay to elect more people to give them higher and higher profits.

It all comes back to greed in the end with this bunch, every single time. Every time.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not so sure we can point our finger at any one party. Goldman-Saks gave more money to the Democrats this past election than to the Republicans. Corporations give money to the candidates who they think can win and once they win they collect on the debt. This allows corporations to purchase policy no matter who is in office and neither side is innocent of accepting such manna in exchange for influence.

0 Replies

This is well put; this says it for me:

"Thursday, January 21, 2010

Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association praised the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today
in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
removing unconstitutional restrictions on the NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the original debate over this legislation
that it was his intention to silence groups like the NRA.
While the author of this measure had singled out the NRA,
this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens:
“Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”

Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said,
“This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment
applies to each and every one of us. The majesty of free speech
is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as
The New York Times, NBC or politicians. This is a defeat for
arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a
privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for
those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be
treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.
Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written
for every American and it will amplify the voice of average
citizens who want their voices heard.”

The case originally centered on the FEC’s denial of Citizens United’s attempt
to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton through on-demand cable
services in January 2008, but had broader implications in protecting
the First Amendment rights of organizations like the NRA during election time.

Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA chief lobbyist, said, “This decision today
returns sanity to our political system. The First Amendment does
not allow Congress to make laws denying Americans the right to
speak out on issues, the right to assemble or organize on public
policy issues, or the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.” "

It is a travesty that the anti-freedom liberals on the USSC voted to stifle us.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It is a travesty that the anti-freedom liberals on the USSC voted to stifle us.

The problem is, the NRA isn't a person and shouldn't have the same rights a person does. It's an interest group that would seek to buy elections in order to get their candidates elected. They can use huge amounts of money to do so, which allows individuals such as yourself to bypass campaign finance laws.

You seek to give corporations and interest groups the same rights as a person, because you feel it will help YOUR politicians who represent YOUR interests get elected - and you don't give a **** if it subverts democracy for the rest of us. It's pretty sad.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Snort

If one were to outline the problems with our electoral system,
I highly doubt that 'not enough corporate cash' would have been on the list.

What a travesty.

Cycloptichorn

The TRAVESTY was the rape of the FIRST AMENDMENT, 4 different ways
that was perpetrated by the campaign finance nonsense.

That was a Congressional USURPATION of power, like gun control.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Is some big rich corporation decides to stomp out the 2nd Amendment they can now do it by buying the votes.

I wonder what Bill Gates thinks of guns?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

David wrote:

It is a travesty that the anti-freedom liberals on the USSC voted to stifle us.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem is, the NRA isn't a person

A corporation IS a person.
The NRA is a corporation.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

and shouldn't have the same rights a person does.

Nonsense.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's an interest group that would seek to buy elections
in order to get their candidates elected.

SUPERB!
That is what every special interest group shoud do in a free country.
Democracy is IMPOSSIBLE except in the presence of effective, vocal watchful, spying,
special interest groups to keep the politicians in line
on federal, state, county, city and village levels.
No voter can do that alone. He will not even TRY.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They can use huge amounts of money to do so, which allows individuals such as yourself
to bypass campaign finance laws.

Such laws r unAmerican an unconstitutional rapes of the First Amendment.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You seek to give corporations and interest groups the same rights as a person,

When government was created after the minions of King of England were thrown out,
it was created such as NOT to have 37 specific powers prohibited in the Bill of Rights.
That included freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
freedom of association and freedom to petition government
for redress of grievances, ALL of which were raped by McCain-Feingold.

Campaign finance reform existed ONLY upon the basis
of stolen authority, fake authority.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

because you feel it will help YOUR politicians
who represent YOUR interests get elected - and you don't
give a **** if it subverts democracy for the rest of us.
It's pretty sad.

Cycloptichorn

SEE ABOVE.

2 Replies

FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know