• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you Support the McGovern amendments? (money isnt free speech amendment)

Do you support the McGovern amendments?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 20 62.5%

  • No

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • Total voters
    32
T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) has introduced two constitutional amendment bills: H.J.Res. 20, to enable us to get the money out of politics, and H.J.Res. 21, to make it clear that corporations don't have constitutional rights. H.J.Res. 21 has bipartisan support, from Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC).
Click to expand...


Do you support this amendment?
Yes? No? Why?

Video @: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7003/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12682
 
I vote yes. For serveral reasons.
Money is not free speech. Money is not speech. I dont want democracy to be bought.
Corporations are also not people.
 
I can't think of one reason why anyone here wouldn't be for the amendment. It seems only the wealthy would be affected adversely.

TheDemSocialist said:
I vote yes. For serveral reasons.
Money is not free speech. Money is not speech. I dont want democracy to be bought.
Corporations are also not people.
Click to expand...
 
Absolutely. This is the 'small-government' position on the issue.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I vote yes. For serveral reasons.
Money is not free speech. Money is not speech. I dont want democracy to be bought.
Corporations are also not people.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said, but our elections are bought. Both major parties received tons of money from special interests, lobbyist, big money donors, corporations, Wall Street, super pacs, money bundlers, and on and on. The candidates of the major parties are bought and paid. With out all these cash cows these candidates wouldn’t have enough money to run a creditable campaign.

We have no fair elections for the House, most districts are gerrymandered, jury rigged so the results are known before the first vote is cast. I am with you.
 
The idea of Corporate personhood disgusts me. Yes to the second resolution.

First resolution I'm all for as well, lobbying should be a Federal crime. Only way you should be able to buy a politicians favour is with votes.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I can't think of one reason why anyone here wouldn't be for the amendment. It seems only the wealthy would be affected adversely.
Click to expand...

I can: amending the constitution to limit or take away rights, even those I do not like, is against the very core of my principles. Further, amending the constitution for anything shy of major issues is something I am against. For both these reasons, while I appreciate the reason and the goal of the proposed amendments, I would have to oppose them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you support this amendment?
Yes? No? Why?

Video @: [/FONT]http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7003/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12682
Click to expand...

No, because of all the unintended consequences.
Money is going to be in politics, whether or not, you like it.
Right now, we can see it, more or less.

All this would do is push it under the table.
 
I refuse to believe a corporation is a person until Texas executes one.
 
No. This is pure demagoguery.

Corporation is just a form of organization. Corporations do not speak, they are inanimate - the people who constitute corporations do. Blocking their right to free speech by blocking the use of corporate funds (or union, or NGO funds, since those are also covered by the famous - and correct - SCOTUS decision) is an attack on freedom of speech, plain and simple.

(It is interesting, by the way, that opponents of Citizens United pretend not to understand how limiting spending on speech to personal checking accounts would have exactly the effect of disenfranchising the "little guy": Soros and Koch can spend (and do spend) much more on supporting their views than you or I ever could).
 
Einzige said:
Absolutely. This is the 'small-government' position on the issue.
Click to expand...

So limiting speech is a small government position? :roll:
 
I can't stand lobbyist. I hate that corporations buy votes.

I would be all for eliminating it if we could make a bill or amendment with DIRECT language. Nothing that could be misinterpreted.
 
AreteCourage said:
I can't stand lobbyist. I hate that corporations buy votes.
Click to expand...

Overturning Citizens United would give lobbyists more influence, not less. The money that would be spent on publishing or broadcasting political positions (open to analysis and objections) would go straight to "our guy in Washington".

Besides, people tend to imagine some big bank or oil company, when the word "corporation" is used. But Citizens United does not protect the rights of people at large corporations only. A company I consult for had paid for a political ad in a local newspaper last October. It is a start-up with small-scale manufacturing on premises, and they would be hurt badly by zoning manipulations one of candidates was proposing. There are 6 people in the company, none of them rich, as far as I can tell. They do not have money in their pockets; all they have is the corporate account, created with venture capital. Blocking its use would mean shutting these people up. End of story.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you support this amendment?
Yes? No? Why?

Video @: [/FONT]http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7003/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12682
Click to expand...

While we are at it lets add flag burning, bogarting public spaces for a lengthy amount of time, trying to shout down others, crowding the front of businesses in order to prevent them from operating efficiently,chaining yourself to doors or something else and etc to that list of stuff that shouldn't be considered speech.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you support this amendment?
Yes? No? Why?

Video @: [/FONT]http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7003/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12682
Click to expand...


You would think people of all political persuasions would support these amendments!
 
Last edited:
A corporation is a group of people, just like a union, a football team or a Rock & Roll band.
 
If money isn't speech, then time isn't speech. Let's limit the amount of time that people can discuss politics. This won't infringe on free speech, because time isn't speech.
 
Juiposa said:
The idea of Corporate personhood disgusts me. Yes to the second resolution.

First resolution I'm all for as well, lobbying should be a Federal crime. Only way you should be able to buy a politicians favour is with votes.
Click to expand...

I would differentiate between the core idea of lobbying, and campaign contributions. Groups should absolutely be able to speak to advance their positions, and represent an interest in an issue. But they should have to do it with words, not with money.

Part of the problem is that donations are no longer the main issue. SuperPACs don't need to contribute to a campaign. They function as secondary campaigns on their own. In order to truly combat the problem, there would need to be controls on individual expenditures, too.

I like the ideas in these amendments, though to truly combat the corruption in our elections, oversight and limitations on the electoral process would need to be enacted. Only totally publicly funded elections can hope to over come the unbalanced influence of wealthy interests.
 
We have in this country a wonderful way of alleviating the influence of money in politics. It is called the vote. The Koch Bros. can buy all the politicians they want to. I simply don't vote for them. The solution to the problem is higher intelligence of the electorate...****, were doomed!!

Living in CA I have to decide how to vote on propositions that cannot be understood even if you have a law degree. I don't have time to study these props that are intentionally written to confuse and fatigue anyone trying to make sense of them. I have a standard way of voting. I watch which side spends the most money and vote the other way.:roll:
 
jamesrage said:
While we are at it lets add flag burning,
Click to expand...
Expression

bogarting public spaces for a lengthy amount of time,
Click to expand...
Isnt this illegal? Remember OWS?

trying to shout down others,
Click to expand...
How would you even put yelling on here?

crowding the front of businesses in order to prevent them from operating efficiently,
Click to expand...
Citibank Arrests - YouTube

Yea...

chaining yourself to doors or something else and etc to that list of stuff that shouldn't be considered speech.
Click to expand...
Remember in the good ol USA it isnt considered free speech. Ask yourself why they always get arrested....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Expression
Click to expand...
The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about expression. Speech is the articulation of words whether its verbal,written or sign languaged.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech


American Heritage Dictionary Entry: speech
1.
a. The faculty or act of speaking.
b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
2.
a. What is spoken or expressed, as in conversation; uttered or written words: seditious speech.
b. A talk or public address, or a written copy of this: The senator gave a speech.
3.
a. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech.
b. One's manner or style of speaking: the mayor's mumbling speech.
4. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology.



American Heritage Dictionary Entry: expression
1. The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement; a manifestation: an expression of rural values.
2. Something that expresses or communicates: Let this plaque serve as an expression of our esteem.
3. Mathematics A symbol or combination of symbols that represents a quantity or a relationship between quantities.
4. The manner in which one expresses oneself, especially in speaking, depicting, or performing.
5. A particular word or phrase: "an old Yankee expression ... 'Stand up and be counted'" (Charles Kuralt).
6. The outward manifestation of a mood or a disposition: My tears are an expression of my grief.
7. A facial aspect or a look that conveys a special feeling: an expression of scorn.
8. The act of pressing or squeezing out.
9. Genetics The act or process of expressing a gene.


Isnt this illegal? Remember OWS?
Click to expand...

But many people claimed that they had the constitutional right to do that.

How would you even put yelling on here?
Click to expand...

I am sure someone can come up with something.

Citibank Arrests - YouTube

Yea...


Remember in the good ol USA it isnt considered free speech. Ask yourself why they always get arrested....
Click to expand...

Maybe because they are doing other **** like rioting.
 
jamesrage said:
The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about expression. Speech is the articulation of words whether its verbal,written or sign languaged.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech


American Heritage Dictionary Entry: speech
1.
a. The faculty or act of speaking.
b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
2.
a. What is spoken or expressed, as in conversation; uttered or written words: seditious speech.
b. A talk or public address, or a written copy of this: The senator gave a speech.
3.
a. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech.
b. One's manner or style of speaking: the mayor's mumbling speech.
4. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology.



American Heritage Dictionary Entry: expression
1. The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement; a manifestation: an expression of rural values.
2. Something that expresses or communicates: Let this plaque serve as an expression of our esteem.
3. Mathematics A symbol or combination of symbols that represents a quantity or a relationship between quantities.
4. The manner in which one expresses oneself, especially in speaking, depicting, or performing.
5. A particular word or phrase: "an old Yankee expression ... 'Stand up and be counted'" (Charles Kuralt).
6. The outward manifestation of a mood or a disposition: My tears are an expression of my grief.
7. A facial aspect or a look that conveys a special feeling: an expression of scorn.
8. The act of pressing or squeezing out.
9. Genetics The act or process of expressing a gene.
Click to expand...
Well you do realize that your definition of expression backs up what i said right?
"The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words"

But many people claimed that they had the constitutional right to do that.
Click to expand...
Well according to the first amendment: "The right to peacefully assemble".. As long as your peacefully "bogarting public spaces" i guess its fair game.


I am sure someone can come up with something.
Click to expand...
Can you?



Maybe because they are doing other **** like rioting.
Click to expand...
Man they were really rioting in that video. Everyone all calm standing around inside and outside of the bank. Crazy riot that was :roll:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well you do realize that your definition of expression backs up what i said right?
"The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words"
Click to expand...

That definition does not back up what you say.If you were talking about writing or talking about flag burning then you would be correct. Articulating something in words and burning something are two different things.
 
jamesrage said:
That definition does not back up what you say.
Click to expand...
You said speech and expression are not the same. The definition of expression includes speech!

If you were talking about writing or talking about flag burning then you would be correct. Articulating something in words and burning something are two different things.
Click to expand...

What about the rest of the post?
How was that video a riot?
And can you come up with something about yelling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom