Hillary calls for First Amendment o be repealed: Dems cheer!

[JasperL]

I think if you have to pay more taxes you should be able to use your wealth to advocate for a politician or a law. I find that part of free speech. If everyone is limited to the same level of advocacy, they should be subject to the same amount of tax

Shocker, rich guy thinks rich guys should have more say in government than the poor!

And of course the rich have always had and will always have an opportunity to use their wealth to advocate for laws or candidates. Hiring lobbyists is just one easy way to push an agenda, a promise of jobs for those in government who play ball (see this one nearly every time a high profile person leaves government), and political contributions even under limits will be vastly higher for the wealthy than for the poor. I seem to recall they're now able to bundle single checks of up to $350k or so per person, even with limits.

But the key 'error' as I see it is Kennedy's insane conclusion that, “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

I guess it depends on who is looking and what the definition of "corruption" is, whether there is an "appearance" of our outright corruption when a person donates $500k, $1m, $10m, who knows to a candidate through only theoretically "independent" orgs. Obviously donors with that kind of money aren't idiots and THINK they're buying results, and every study on the subject shows they do get policies they want in place, but we're supposed to pretend that there is no link between a huge outlay in support of a candidate and what that candidate does when elected. I can't imagine anyone being that naive.

 

[JasperL]

I agree with you Ludin, especially the list of the impacted.
Now why do I get the feeling that the Dems would much rather have everyone banned from contributions except the unions? Hmm.

But realistically, they'd have to be included as well. Best to write that part of the restrictions into the law itself so as it stays there.

Sure, and the GOPers would rather unions be defunded and allow the NRA and the national Chamber boys to spend unlimited sums but I'm pretty sure rules that applied to NRA and CoC applied to unions and vice versa.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sure, and the GOPers would rather unions be defunded and allow the NRA and the national Chamber boys to spend unlimited sums but I'm pretty sure rules that applied to NRA and CoC applied to unions and vice versa.

Yes, they should. There needs to be a balance maintained, such that no one side or party has an undue advantage over the other. Yes, it's politics, and yes, it's funding for politicians, but the electorate should receive a fair and balance representation.

Which calls to question how the liberal biased media continues to escape this.

CNN running draft stories past the Hillary campaign before reporting them? Really? How is this not an unfair advantage for the Dems?
It really has become, CNN = Clinton News Network.

 

[jonny5]

At least you can admit it, this is why we have a Republic Oligarchy. I'm all for opportunity not result, just not in elections.

We dont have a oligarchy. Decisions are made by representatives elected by democracy. No one pays you to vote.

 

[TurtleDude]

Shocker, rich guy thinks rich guys should have more say in government than the poor!

And of course the rich have always had and will always have an opportunity to use their wealth to advocate for laws or candidates. Hiring lobbyists is just one easy way to push an agenda, a promise of jobs for those in government who play ball (see this one nearly every time a high profile person leaves government), and political contributions even under limits will be vastly higher for the wealthy than for the poor. I seem to recall they're now able to bundle single checks of up to $350k or so per person, even with limits.

But the key 'error' as I see it is Kennedy's insane conclusion that, “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

I guess it depends on who is looking and what the definition of "corruption" is, whether there is an "appearance" of our outright corruption when a person donates $500k, $1m, $10m, who knows to a candidate through only theoretically "independent" orgs. Obviously donors with that kind of money aren't idiots and THINK they're buying results, and every study on the subject shows they do get policies they want in place, but we're supposed to pretend that there is no link between a huge outlay in support of a candidate and what that candidate does when elected. I can't imagine anyone being that naive.

if you pay more you should have more say

 

[blaxshep]

We dont have a oligarchy. Decisions are made by representatives elected by democracy. No one pays you to vote.

What does paying me to vote have to do with anything?

 

[jonny5]

What does paying me to vote have to do with anything?

Youre implying corporations spending money equals a election result. I dont see how that is possible unless they are paying people to vote.

 

[ludin]

Sure, and the GOPers would rather unions be defunded and allow the NRA and the national Chamber boys to spend unlimited sums but I'm pretty sure rules that applied to NRA and CoC applied to unions and vice versa.

this is just nonsense.

If corporations can't contribute because they are not people then unions are not people either they should not be able to finance campaigns.
the NRA etc are then not people either.

equal protection remember.

Which was the whole complaint in citizens to begin with. that unions were not people but still able to voice their opinion.

 

[blaxshep]

if you pay more you should have more say

Should the right to vote be limited to wealthy land owners as it was originally?

 

[ludin]

Youre implying corporations spending money equals a election result. I dont see how that is possible unless they are paying people to vote.

which is illegal

 

[blaxshep]

Youre implying corporations spending money equals a election result. I dont see how that is possible unless they are paying people to vote.

Then why spend money if it doesn't?

 

[coldjoint]

Youre implying corporations spending money equals a election result. I dont see how that is possible unless they are paying people to vote.

The Democrats do that now. That is what entitlements are.

 

[TurtleDude]

Should the right to vote be limited to wealthy land owners as it was originally?

I don't know about that because there are plenty of people who are high net tax payers who might rent expensive apartments in NYC

 

[blaxshep]

I don't know about that because there are plenty of people who are high net tax payers who might rent expensive apartments in NYC

To be honest I do see the value in having those that produce / contribute nothing not being given a vote.

 

[TurtleDude]

To be honest I do see the value in having those that produce / contribute nothing not being given a vote.

I agree

 

[Mr Person]

Read more at: Citizens United & Hillary Clinton -- Overturning Means Repealing First Amendment | National Review

Of course, we can call a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United by another name: a repeal of the First Amendment.

Well, that's the position National Review needs to take if it wants to retain its target audience. Of course, choosing to "call" something a name doesn't make it so.

It is beyond dishonest to claim that overturning Citizens United = repealing the 1st Amd, based on a disagreement with the dissent. So sick of seeing conservatives tell themselves that their personal (and usually not legally informed) opinion of a constitutional provision is the One True Belief.




(It's also kind of strange. So...what does this imply? There was no First Amendment until Citizens United was decided? That'd surprise the founders)

 

[JackA]

time, talent, and treasure. all three have an impact on being able to effectively reach an audience.

come back with something new and non-sophomoric and we can have a dialog

So does charisma have an impact. So does the weather. The test isn't whether time equals money (it doesn't), but whether time equals speech. It doesn't. No thanks on the dialogue.

 

[JasperL]

this is just nonsense.

If corporations can't contribute because they are not people then unions are not people either they should not be able to finance campaigns.
the NRA etc are then not people either.

equal protection remember.

Which was the whole complaint in citizens to begin with. that unions were not people but still able to voice their opinion.

What is nonsense? I was trying to indicate I thought they should all live under the SAME RULES.

 

[JasperL]

if you pay more you should have more say

LMAO, of course you'd believe that because it's in your best interest to believe that - you're a rich guy so of course you think you're entitled to more say.

But that's just a defense of an effective aristocracy/oligarchy, and you haven't made a principled case that is what is best for the country, as opposed to what is best for the oligarchs and the already rich.

 

[eohrnberger]

Apples to oranges. Corporations are not a citizen, never were, never will be. I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas hangs one.

Pretty sorry stuff. Corporate personhood is a legal concept that has existed for a very long time.

Indeed. It has. In the US, I believe it was formalized at or around the time of the robber barons period (do please correct me if I'm wrong).

Most interesting is the documentary "The Corporation" -The Film - The award-winning film that puts the corporation on the psychiatrist’s couch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)

However, I'm not so sure that this is an honest measure of the good that corporations can bring, and occasionally do.

I wouldn't necessarily be adverse to limiting some aspects of the legal personhood status that corporations now hold, because they really aren't people.

 

[TurtleDude]

LMAO, of course you'd believe that because it's in your best interest to believe that - you're a rich guy so of course you think you're entitled to more say.

But that's just a defense of an effective aristocracy/oligarchy, and you haven't made a principled case that is what is best for the country, as opposed to what is best for the oligarchs and the already rich.

Democracies fail when the public learns it can vote itself the wealth the public treasury

 

[blaxshep]

LMAO, of course you'd believe that because it's in your best interest to believe that - you're a rich guy so of course you think you're entitled to more say.

But that's just a defense of an effective aristocracy/oligarchy, and you haven't made a principled case that is what is best for the country, as opposed to what is best for the oligarchs and the already rich.

While I agree with you, there is a principled case that it is in fact good for the country:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Because of this, there is a strong case to be made that those that do not produce / contribute should not have a vote.

 

[blaxshep]

Jinx :lamo

 

[JasperL]

Democracies fail when the public learns it can vote itself the wealth the public treasury

LOL, trite talking point consisting of a likely made up quote is not a principled defense of oligarchy. Sorry. :roll:

 

[KLATTU]

W
It is beyond dishonest to claim that overturning Citizens United = repealing the 1st Amd, based on a disagreement with the dissent. So sick of seeing conservatives tell themselves that their personal (and usually not legally informed) opinion of a constitutional provision is the One True Belief.

Well we all can't be as honest nor as smart as you .
She said: And we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!

Since it was decided on First amendment grounds ,how does she intend to do that without

messing withe first amendment? putting a footnote in there." abridging free speech does not apply to corporations that rip into me? " LOL

(It's also kind of strange. So...what does this imply? There was no First Amendment until Citizens United was decided? That'd surprise the founders)

This about the ffth time I've heard this irrelevant squawk point form liberals. Same exact wording. the dog whistle must have gone out! LOL