Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Every Democrat in the Senate Against Free Speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      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

      Comment


      • #18
        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

        Comment


        • #19
          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?

          Comment


          • #20
            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.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              What the democrat party thinks is a fine idea, is getting the special interests big money, out of politics.
              Is this yet another situation where the Democrats pretend to really truly want things to be better, but as long as there isn't a law forcing them to do it, they'll continue to be lying hypocrites?

              Hedge-Fund Billionaires Were Democrats’ Main Bankrollers in 2018

              In the 2018 midterms, Democrats benefited more than Republicans from election spending by outside groups for the first time in recent history. Now, thanks to a new report from Public Citizen, we have a better understanding of where much of that money backing Democrats came from: wealthy individuals who earn their livings as hedge-fund founders, bank executives, and other key positions in the financial industry.

              The report, named “Plutocrat Politics: How Financial Sector Wealth Fuels Political Ad Spending” and authored by Public Citizen’s Alan Zibel, analyzed the 100 individuals who gave the most money to outside political spending groups in the 2018 cycle and found that about half of that money came from people with financial industry backgrounds. Roughly three-quarters of the money donated by financial industry donors was spent supporting Democratic candidates. The finance industry donors in the top 100 gave $264 million to Democrat-supporting outside groups in 2017-18, according to the report.


              Why do you let these corrupt politicians lie to you, Jim?
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #22
                It's like Cortez complaining about "dark money" despite the fact that her campaign greatly benefited from the same.
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  It's like Cortez complaining about "dark money" despite the fact that her campaign greatly benefited from the same.
                  yup --- We don't want YOU to have big money, but it's ok for US DEMOCRATS!
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Is this yet another situation where the Democrats pretend to really truly want things to be better, but as long as there isn't a law forcing them to do it, they'll continue to be lying hypocrites?

                    Hedge-Fund Billionaires Were DemocratsÂ’ Main Bankrollers in 2018

                    In the 2018 midterms, Democrats benefited more than Republicans from election spending by outside groups for the first time in recent history. Now, thanks to a new report from Public Citizen, we have a better understanding of where much of that money backing Democrats came from: wealthy individuals who earn their livings as hedge-fund founders, bank executives, and other key positions in the financial industry.

                    The report, named “Plutocrat Politics: How Financial Sector Wealth Fuels Political Ad Spending” and authored by Public Citizen’s Alan Zibel, analyzed the 100 individuals who gave the most money to outside political spending groups in the 2018 cycle and found that about half of that money came from people with financial industry backgrounds. Roughly three-quarters of the money donated by financial industry donors was spent supporting Democratic candidates. The finance industry donors in the top 100 gave $264 million to Democrat-supporting outside groups in 2017-18, according to the report.


                    Why do you let these corrupt politicians lie to you, Jim?
                    Try to leave your biased perspective behind when trying to find the facts, CP. Read the whole article rather than cherry picking out only that which you want to believe. Both political parties are on the take from these special interest groups, both are captives of the system, and perhaps the democrats outdid the republicans for the first time in 2018 in garnering special interest donations, but there is only one party that is trying to get that special interests money out of politics, and it ain't the republicans.

                    The solution, according to the article, is to end the massive influx of corporate and special interest money into our elections-Public Citizens has long championed a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United and support public financing of campaigns. That's not something republicans want to do. It's only democrats trying to overthrow Citizens United and enact other campaign finance laws that would get special interests money out of politics.

                    So, in conclusion, both political parties benefit from special interest financing, that's how the corrupt system works, but only one political party is trying to reform that corrupt sytem, and it ain't your party!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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. 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?
                      so would you like it if Trump decided that Hollywood was not allowed to make any movies or campaign videos promoting whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be? Or attacking Trump? Because it can work both ways.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        so would you like it if Trump decided that Hollywood was not allowed to make any movies or campaign videos promoting whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be? Or attacking Trump? Because it can work both ways.
                        This is about campaign financing, Sparko, not about Hollywood or the movies they make. As far as movies are concerned, you see what you want to see.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Try to leave your biased perspective behind...
                          When you can post without bias, then feel free to lecture. You are the very epitome of bias.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            So, in conclusion, both political parties benefit from special interest financing, that's how the corrupt system works, but only one political party is trying to reform that corrupt sytem, and it ain't your party!
                            I'm not a Republican, genius.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              I'm not a Republican, genius.
                              Okay, you're a Trumpian, which is even worse!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Okay, you're a Trumpian, which is even worse!
                                You're doubling down on the lies, and showing what a jackass you are, NAMBLA boy.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                75 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                262 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                83 responses
                                348 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X