Jump to content

I wonder how this is going to go?


Trevis

Recommended Posts

The amendment is to repeal/overturn Citizens United. Which said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The amendment could also be used to limit how much money individuals can spend, as well as how much the candidates themselves can spend (would seem to be able to include travel expenses for campaigning, not just running ads and whatnot)

 

It would seem its geared more to overturn the Buckley v. Valeo ruling than Citizens United, since it would apply to all campaign spending, not just spending by corporations and unions

 

 

This part is interesting though:

``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant

Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Does that mean as long as you call yourself "the press" you can continue to spend as much as you like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amendment is to repeal/overturn Citizens United. Which said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

No, the Citizens United decision affirmed that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.

 

Bear in mind this was about banning the showing of a movie about Hillary Clinton, I'm astonished and a bit terrified that 4 SCOTUS justices thought that was OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This part is interesting though:

``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant

Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Does that mean as long as you call yourself "the press" you can continue to spend as much as you like?

 

That is where Congress asserts that they can abridge freedom of the press if they so desired, so long as the press in question was corporate owned as most of it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the Citizens United decision affirmed that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.

 

Bear in mind this was about banning the showing of a movie about Hillary Clinton, I'm astonished and a bit terrified that 4 SCOTUS justices thought that was OK.

The Citizens United decision affirmed that corporations and unions have a protected right to free speech (thus congress can pass no law abridging it)

 

 

The Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 found that campaign spending and donations fell within the realm of free speech, that is the more relevant case to this proposed amendment

 

That is where Congress asserts that they can abridge freedom of the press if they so desired, so long as the press in question was corporate owned as most of it is.

I'm reading it as the opposite, they can abridge freedom of speech (as it pertains to campaign spending) except for the press

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading it as the opposite, they can abridge freedom of speech (as it pertains to campaign spending) except for the press

If corporations have no free speech rights then neither does corporate-owned press.

 

"The press" in the 1st Amendment didn't refer to the news media or newspapers or professional reporters, it literally meant a printing press. It's been expanded over the years as new technology has come into play, such as radio and television and the internet. But it was never meant to mean only reporters and news media, reporters have no more free speech rights under the Constitution than anyone else does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm reading it as the opposite, they can abridge freedom of speech (as it pertains to campaign spending) except for the press

If corporations have no free speech rights then neither does corporate-owned press.

 

"The press" in the 1st Amendment didn't refer to the news media or newspapers or professional reporters, it literally meant a printing press. It's been expanded over the years as new technology has come into play, such as radio and television and the internet. But it was never meant to mean only reporters and news media, reporters have no more free speech rights under the Constitution than anyone else does.

 

That's why I'm thinking its in there, to exempt the press (even corporate-owned)

 

Besides, all press is owned by someone and the proposed amendment would allow restrictions to applied to everyone, not just corporations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I'm thinking its in there, to exempt the press (even corporate-owned)

 

Besides, all press is owned by someone and the proposed amendment would allow restrictions to applied to everyone, not just corporations

Oh, my bad I thought you were quoting the part of McCain-Feingold[/i] that was struck down, not the amendment Reid is pushing. McCain-Feingold exempted the news media from its provisions, which is what I was referring to when I sad they asserted they could censor it if they chose to.

 

I predict this amendment will go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, my bad I thought you were quoting the part of McCain-Feingold[/i] that was struck down, not the amendment Reid is pushing. McCain-Feingold exempted the news media from its provisions, which is what I was referring to when I sad they asserted they could censor it if they chose to.

 

I predict this amendment will go nowhere.

 

I'm thinking it's more political posturing to say he is trying to remove the corporate influence from Washington, which is obviously antithetical to any of the DC ruling class agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The amendment is to repeal/overturn Citizens United. Which said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

No, the Citizens United decision affirmed that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.

 

Bear in mind this was about banning the showing of a movie about Hillary Clinton, I'm astonished and a bit terrified that 4 SCOTUS justices thought that was OK.

 

 

 

Money should not be equal to speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money should not be equal to speech.

A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional.

 

That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Money should not be equal to speech.

A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional.

 

That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right?

 

But that would ignore the right to be secure in person and property... disallowing control of such is against another amendment, the 4th, and placing money under the first allows for shady playing of the way your rights can be molded. Now, doesn't that paint a different picture of this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Money should not be equal to speech.

 

A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional.

That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right?

But that would ignore the right to be secure in person and property... disallowing control of such is against another amendment, the 4th, and placing money under the first allows for shady playing of the way your rights can be molded. Now, doesn't that paint a different picture of this issue?

Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Money should not be equal to speech.

A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional.

 

That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right?

 

 

 

 

In today's politicos, if you have $100 and I have $10....you have more 'speech' than I do. have you noticed the guy with the most money wins 95% of elections? That's not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In today's politicos, if you have $100 and I have $10....you have more 'speech' than I do. have you noticed the guy with the most money wins 95% of elections? That's not right.

The same was true when the Constitution was written. Ben Franklin and his printing press could afford a lot more speech than the farmer.

 

And you've just admitted that limiting money limits speech, you can't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that would ignore the right to be secure in person and property... disallowing control of such is against another amendment, the 4th, and placing money under the first allows for shady playing of the way your rights can be molded. Now, doesn't that paint a different picture of this issue?

?

 

Not following that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

Not following that at all.
Get some sleep and come back to me. What I was saying is that disallowing someone to spend their money as they see fit is a property issue, not a speech issue. The fact that the political world has classified money as speech really changed the whole dynamic, allowing them to manipulate things like campaign funds and such. Really, money as speech makes no sense in the realm of investment, and economics in general. It's more guys in fancy suits changing the rules of the game so they win, and we all keep losing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not following that at all.

Get some sleep and come back to me. What I was saying is that disallowing someone to spend their money as they see fit is a property issue, not a speech issue. The fact that the political world has classified money as speech really changed the whole dynamic, allowing them to manipulate things like campaign funds and such. Really, money as speech makes no sense in the realm of investment, and economics in general. It's more guys in fancy suits changing the rules of the game so they win, and we all keep losing.

 

How is limiting money not a speech issue? Speech costs money, this forum costs money. Would you be in favor of this forum being shut down because it goes over some arbitrary limit? Isn't Illinois Carry incorporated?

 

eta: just woke up actually, now off to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...