Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 84

Thread: Every Democrat in the Senate Against Free Speech

  1. #11
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,454
    Amen (Given)
    958
    Amen (Received)
    2903
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think, perhaps, you're focusing to much on "the company is a person" aspect. We're talking about free speech regarding the ballot box - not deregulation of the medical field.
    It's referring to the freedom of a company (made up of one or more persons) to be able to express their opinion without undue restriction.

    The 'company' would still be prohibited from falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but would retain the same rights to free speech as any other person.

    And maybe there's a distinction between "lobbying power" and "free speech" in the election process. I'm not thrilled at all about the terrible abuses in lobbying Congress, for example.
    I'm also not sure how you'd regulate it either. Big business and politicians find all sorts of ways to hand out vacations, restaurant visits, favors and so forth without it being easy to trace.

    As for Google being able to declare which president they support I don't mind that.

  2. #12
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,487
    Amen (Given)
    11871
    Amen (Received)
    25279
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I'm also not sure how you'd regulate it either. Big business and politicians find all sorts of ways to hand out vacations, restaurant visits, favors and so forth without it being easy to trace.
    The "walkin around money" in many minority districts was legend --- politicians would pay for a new roof for a church, or build a playground, or whatever if the church (or other entity) would allow them the platform.

    As for Google being able to declare which president they support I don't mind that.
    If they PLAYED FAIR!

    I'm not against big donations, but I think ALL money should be identified as to source. That's tough to do, too, as people who have exceeded their maximum contribution have notoriously handed out money to others to donate to their preferred candidate.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. Amen Leonhard amen'd this post.
  4. #13
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,548
    Amen (Given)
    8409
    Amen (Received)
    5369
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.
    Okay, so, to a point, do I - how now do you deal with aggregate speech?

  5. #14
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,548
    Amen (Given)
    8409
    Amen (Received)
    5369
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Eh, still not sure the company counts as being identical with me. Seems rather that a company is a business you start, and so can be subject to a lot of regulation. It describes something you are doing, an activity you're undertaking in the marketplace.

    We don't have absolute free speech. We've talked about this on the forum before. Sometimes the state has a vested interested in legislating what can and can't be said by individuals, or by companies. For instance, it was recently tried by a libertarian group to argue that the state legislating what counts as practicing medicine is an attack on freedom of speech. It failed in the first court they tried it though they're taking it all the way to the supreme court.

    Let's say that they have their way: A company is a human and can say almost pretty much whatever it wants. After that nobody needs a license to practice medicine, anyone can hang up a diploma from any school and claim expertise in any field without any restriction. It would be a disaster on the American economy.

    Clearly, a company is subject to more restrictions on what it can say than an individual human is.

    That being said I don't know where I stand on companies being allowed unlimited and anonymous lobbying power. That seems like a very dangerous shift of power away from the people towards individuals.
    Er, Leo - a company that isn't incorporated dies with its owner (yeah, the kids can take up the mantle but in a real sense the original company as a legal entity is gone). A corporation does not. They are very different legal entities - which is where the person idea comes from.

  6. #15
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,548
    Amen (Given)
    8409
    Amen (Received)
    5369
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    The "walkin around money" in many minority districts was legend --- politicians would pay for a new roof for a church, or build a playground, or whatever if the church (or other entity) would allow them the platform.



    If they PLAYED FAIR!

    I'm not against big donations, but I think ALL money should be identified as to source. That's tough to do, too, as people who have exceeded their maximum contribution have notoriously handed out money to others to donate to their preferred candidate.
    Money is not the issue with Google - they have influence that does not cost them any money at all.

  7. #16
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,487
    Amen (Given)
    11871
    Amen (Received)
    25279
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Er, Leo - a company that isn't incorporated dies with its owner (yeah, the kids can take up the mantle but in a real sense the original company as a legal entity is gone). A corporation does not. They are very different legal entities - which is where the person idea comes from.
    In fact, hundreds of thousands of "companies" in the US pay there taxes as a schedule C (and related forms) on the PERSON'S tax return. It's one pool of money.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  8. Amen Teallaura, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  9. #17
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,869
    Amen (Given)
    5650
    Amen (Received)
    5911
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I'm not against big donations, but I think ALL money should be identified as to source. That's tough to do, too, as people who have exceeded their maximum contribution have notoriously handed out money to others to donate to their preferred candidate.
    Or they make lots of small donations that don't have to be individually reported. That's how Obama was able to accept millions of dollars in illegal contributions from foreign entities (and Bill Clinton before him; probably Hillary, too). It's a pretty major loophole.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  10. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  11. #18
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,869
    Amen (Given)
    5650
    Amen (Received)
    5911
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.
    Denying someone their right to free speech simply because they're part of a company is even more dubious.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  12. #19
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,237
    Amen (Given)
    1643
    Amen (Received)
    1452
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech

    Every Democrat in the Senate is backing a constitutional amendment that aims to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision in which the Supreme Court lifted legal restrictions on what corporations and unions are allowed to say about politics at election time. That would be troubling enough, since Citizens United, which involved a film that was banned from TV because it was too critical of Hillary Clinton, simply recognized that Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights when they organize themselves in a disfavored way. But the so-called Democracy for All Amendment goes much further than nullifying one Supreme Court decision. It would radically rewrite the constitutional treatment of political speech, allowing Congress and state legislatures to impose any restrictions on election-related spending they consider reasonable.

    "To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo.

    In Buckley, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Election Campaign Act's limits on campaign contributions, which it said were justified by the desire to prevent "corruption and the appearance of corruption." But the Court overturned FECA's limits on spending by candidates and on independent spending by individuals and groups. Those limits, the Court said, "place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate."

    The rationale for that conclusion is not, as critics often claim, that "money is speech." The point, rather, is that people must spend money to communicate with large numbers of their fellow citizens. Limits on spending therefore restrict their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights. If the government banned computers and smartphones, that would clearly violate the First Amendment—not because computers and smartphones are speech but because they are necessary to participate in online debate.

    The Democracy for All Amendment would ditch this understanding of the First Amendment and instead rely on legislators' self-restraint in deciding which limits on spending are "reasonable." Courts reviewing the resulting rules would have precious little guidance in deciding when they went too far.

    Section 2 of the amendment adds that legislators "may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections." In other words, a complete ban on election-related speech by citizens organized as corporations, including a wide range of nonprofit interest groups across the political spectrum, would be presumptively reasonable, regardless of timing. By contrast, the ban overturned by Citizens United applied only to messages that mentioned a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

    The implication, perhaps, is that a complete ban on election-related spending by individuals or by groups not organized as corporations would not be constitutional. But how close legislators could get to that policy without violating the First Amendment is anybody's guess.

    "Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account," says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.), a lead co-sponsor of the amendment. Chris Coons, the other Democratic senator from Delaware, likewise promises that the amendment will "give all Americans an equal voice in our elections."

    Carper and Coons are not saying that every American should get an equal vote. They are saying that every American should have an equal influence on the political debate, which is impossible but would seem to require, at the very least, that no one be allowed to spend more on election-related speech than the poorest American can afford. The Supreme Court has explicitly said that such equalization of speech is inconsistent with the First Amendment. As now-Justice Elena Kagan noted in a 1996 law review article, it is well-established that "the government may not restrict the speech of some to enhance the speech of others."

    The third section of the amendment contradicts the other two sections by stating that "nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press." The amendment's backers seem to think they are constitutionalizing the "media exemption" from limits like the ones overturned in Citizens United. Under that exception, news outlets such as The New York Times and CNN were free to talk about political candidates close to an election, even though they were organized as corporations.

    As scholars such as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh have shown, however, the "freedom of the press" protected by the First Amendment does not refer to a particular profession. The clause was meant to protect anyone who uses a technology of mass communication—the printing press at the time and, by extension, TV, radio, and the internet today. On its face, then, Section 3 of the Democracy for All Amendment invalidates the rest of it.

    Even if it didn't, what would stop interest groups from using their own media outlets (such as the ill-fated NRA-TV or The Daily Signal, published by the Heritage Foundation) as channels for their political speech, thereby qualifying for constitutional protection even under the Democrats' sharply circumscribed, industry-specific freedom of the press? Presumably, legislators and judges would have to start drawing distinctions between "real" and "fake" media outlets, a judgment for which the Constitution provides no guidance.

    Carper describes this license for censorship as "a straightforward constitutional amendment that will restore the health and integrity of our campaign finance system." That's true only if "health and integrity" require muting some voices so that others may be heard. But that goal is plainly at odds with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While the amendment has zero chance of actually being adopted, the fact that the entire Senate Democratic Caucus thinks it's a fine idea speaks volumes about the party's disregard for those freedoms.
    We the people had free speech before the citizens united decision, and we will still have it if a constitutional amendment nullifies the citizens united decision. What the democrat party thinks is a fine idea, is getting the special interests big money, out of politics. The question is, why do you want special interests big money in politics?

  13. #20
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,487
    Amen (Given)
    11871
    Amen (Received)
    25279
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    We the people had free speech before the citizens united decision, and we will still have it if a constitutional amendment nullifies the citizens united decision.
    You obviously don't have a grasp of this whole concept.


    What the democrat party thinks is a fine idea, is getting the special interests big money, out of politics.


    I bet you even typed that with a straight face.

    What the Democrat party thinks is a fine idea is getting REPUBLICAN special interest big money out of politics, but allowing their own.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  14. Amen Teallaura, NorrinRadd, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •