Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:23 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Reducing the Ability to Influence Elections, or Limiting Free Speech? Back to Topics
mweyant

Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:7,844
Points:1,515,865
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 12:38:23 AM

The Democrats Constitutional amendment to limit Free Speech

Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights that the ACLU, which is far from a conservative group, has justly claimed “would directly eviscerate the freedoms of speech, assembly and petition.”

The amendment would allow Congress to “prohibit such entities (corporations and natural persons) from spending money to influence elections.”

Can't Congress work on improving the issue of spending money to influence elections without changing a Constitutional amendment?

REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,014
Points:820,580
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 1:45:07 PM

Steve,
Be careful doing things like that in Florida in public. They may think you're a danger to yourself or others. Lol

Money is indeed a form of speech. If I donate money to a particular cause, it is the same as saying, "I like and support whatever person or issue I'm giving my hard-earned money to."

If you REALLY want to make a difference. Get rid of all the "perks" that politicians enjoy and abolish all non-profit statuses for everything. No tax exemptions for anything; not children, college or solar panels. Every church, synagogue, mosque, political action committee, advocacy group, hospital, charity and civic organization pays one flat tax on every type of income or gift, based on its current market value. No tax breaks for anything will REALLY show who cares about what.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 12:07:18 PM

I looked in my wallet and asked all my money in there how it was doing.

No reply.

Money is not speech.

I smiled in front of building housing a corporation and extended my hand for a handshake.

Nobody shook my hand.

The building did not smile back, nor did it even acknowledge my presence.

Corporations are not people.

This is not over just because they did not go to a vote on it.

And it is very telling that the Republicans are protecting legalized government corruption.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,868
Points:3,427,920
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 10:49:02 AM

How do you change a constitutional amendment without writing a constitutional amendment?
Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,844
Points:1,515,865
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2014 4:27:47 AM

Is money still speech? Yes, as constitutional amendment bid fails in Senate.

9-11-14

"An effort to give Congress new power over campaign finance ended when the proposed amendment didn't clear the 60-vote hurdle to end Senate debate. Many Republicans saw the measure as tampering with the Bill of Rights.

Part of the challenge is that, because the Supreme Court has given wide berth to the notion that money is a constitutionally protected form of speech, the amendment effort inherently involves modifying the hallowed First Amendment right to free speech.

At present, the two major parties remain far apart on whether that’s an acceptable step.

Democrats generally say a constitutional change wouldn’t restrain basic free-speech rights – and would in fact enhance them by making the power of speech less dependent on how much money one has. Many Republicans argue that tampering with the Bill of Rights would create a slippery slope by which a future Congress might undermine free-speech rights.

“I have to say it’s a little disconcerting to see the Democrat-led Senate focusing on things like reducing free-speech protections for the American people," Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky said before the vote.

Earlier this week, in floor debate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas lamented that not a single Democrat had spoken out “against this abominable provision,” which he called a “massive intrusion on civil liberties.” '
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 11:46:03 AM

reb4 there is a difference between advocating for proper and needed regulation and saying "Business is bad and evil".

But that might be difficult to see if you can't tell liberals from socialists.
Profile Pic
samk2012
Veteran Author Michigan

Posts:478
Points:206,835
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 9:36:19 AM

A google search you will find some interesting facts?

Why they don't change the law loopholes if billions of tax dollars are going out of the country ? Who is to blame here National parties, Law makers, Undisclosed funding, Company Share Holders stock options, Undisclosed Heavy lobbying with senators or congressmen or private wealth?

Your local economy is good for you and your country ? Your local economies tank your house value decreases to almost null, No Jobs,No city expenditure and no Clean drinking water and more many which can't be explained. Don't save pennies and leave the Big Foot elephant to take a ride to China, Netherlands and other country economies.See that the local economies are giving away marijuana licenses for state income ,what next public stripping,sex licenses
or what disturbing licenses you cannot think of?

Did you ever tweet or reach your congressmen about the potential facts the local economies are facing ? Do you ever tell your congressmen about more transparent government is needed?

I read from internet , you do the same and help yourself , tweet the law makers.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,025
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 8:50:33 AM

Semi Steve posted: "reb4: "Business is bad and evil ..."

Straw Man alert!"
I'm sorry SemiSteve? It's just after reading your post and your past topics... like :
Greedy Corporation Tricks: What Are The Methods Used To Rip Off The 99%?Or this:

Let's Tax Wall Street! Huge Plus For Society. Limits Rampant Speculation. Makes The Market Safer.



The Long Lasting Effects Of Occupy Wall Street



Would The Conservative Message Be Diminished Without Big Money In Politics?


Big Money Flocking Into The USA. Here Come The Rich Foreigners...




Alot of topics that SemiSteve started are espoused in the topic... Like a broken record....




Cary on SS...



[Edited by: reb4 at 8/19/2014 8:51:20 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 1:38:40 PM

reb4: "Business is bad and evil ..."

Straw Man alert!
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,025
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 1:34:22 PM

"I do not understand the reason that anyone would want someone to tell them what to think. period."
Mwyeant, LOL, Business is bad and evil ... unions and workers are good...

Be interesting if this includes unions and other organizations. and what about all the special interest groups?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,659
Points:1,850,125
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 12:05:05 PM

SS: "Not they the foreigners."


Guess the representatives from the foreign multinationals need to fly into Mexico City, take a limo to the U.S. border, walk across, get into a limo on this side, and fly to D.C. Then everything would be OK, as they wouldn't be any different that all those others who are doing the same thing and whom the left has no problem with having a say in how our country is run.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/18/2014 12:06:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 11:46:53 AM

Let's look at one small part of this.

Why in the world should multi-national corporations have ANY influence over OUR political system?

Foreigners have their OWN country in which they can participate in their own political process.

Our government is set up for who?

WE THE PEOPLE.

Not they the foreigners.

Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,844
Points:1,515,865
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2014 9:22:48 AM

I do not understand the reason that anyone would want someone to tell them what to think. period.

The "slanting" comes from all sides of our present political persuasions. That is a different issue.

This thread is about an amendment so that we can be somewhat advised as to what to think. I don't buy it.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2014 9:12:05 AM

mweyant: "This amendment would take our rapidly-approaching nanny state even closer to a country in which no one can think independently. "

Right. That makes perfect sense. Who wouldn't see that connection? Because multi-national mega corporations and super-rich robber barrons can not spend heavily on slanted PR to influence elections and government process people who can not do this are less able to think for themselves.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,738
Points:14,925
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2014 9:50:39 AM

SemiSteve: "There are tea party people who support this."

Support what? Very unclear sentence construction with no clear reference as to what 'this' actually is.

Can you clarify, please?

I like to know which straw man is being slain...

Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,844
Points:1,515,865
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2014 6:00:12 AM

from the linked article "The amendment differentiates between Congress’ ability to “reasonably regulate” the political speech of individuals and the ability of Congress to directly “prohibit” political speech by corporations (and labor unions and non-profit organizations).

The American people would, therefore, have to rely upon our trust in our elected officials and the federal judiciary to determine what speech is reasonable and legal and what is not. This concept is completely contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is only necessary to protect unreasonable speech!"

IMHO, we don't need an amendment for this. I do not wish to read about "who" feels which speech is reasonable and legal and what is not. This amendment would take our rapidly-approaching nanny state even closer to a country in which no one can think independently. I work in a public school that is committed to teaching students "how to think" and not "what to think." Just who is going to be deemed qualified to determine what can be said? Just who is intelligent enough?

[Edited by: mweyant at 8/15/2014 6:01:21 AM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,514
Points:885,890
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 7:22:30 PM

The whole idea of Citizens United and the resulting Corporate free speech is just a cover for hidden agendas of individuals using the corporate veil. That is so prison, jail time, holding someone personally responsible is avoided. AND to buy elections for personal agendas.

The object of this Amendment should only be to reverse that SCOTUS decision and that is all. To do so would be to return the laws to the intent of the Founding Fathers who feared greatly the power of corporations. They fought the Revolutionary War over a corporation's power and the rule of King George.

[Edited by: btc1 at 8/14/2014 7:28:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 7:11:57 PM

There are tea party people who support this.

Money is money. Speech is speech. Different things. Money can be used to send speech to more people, thus increasing the power of speech. Our nation was founded on the principals of equality of rights and balanced power. The concept of privileged power is exactly what they were trying to avoid. That is what people left old Europe for.

The Citizens United ruling must be overturned with a new amendment.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,659
Points:1,850,125
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2014 1:15:47 PM

I75: " Join your local Tea Party."


If the Tea Party wasn't effective the IRS wouldn't have been sicced on them.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/13/2014 1:17:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,512
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2014 12:50:13 PM

This next post goes along with what Norm posted just below:

Study: You Have 'Near-Zero' Impact on U.S. Policy

"A startling new political science study concludes that corporate interests and mega wealthy individuals control U.S. policy to such a degree that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

"The startling study, titled "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens," is slated to appear in an upcoming issue of Perspectives on Politics and was authored by Princeton University Professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Professor Benjamin Page."

""If policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened," conclude Gilens and Page."

Roll back to 2009 and the 2010 elections. Citizens band together, make known their concerns about government, get some traction, then get totally slammed by talking heads and major media (branding Tea Party people as racists, haters, uneducated dolts).

The influence of big money on big politics must be accomplished by a grass-roots network of people communicating with each other and fielding some political opposition to business-as-usual in government. Join your local Tea Party.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 9:15:19 PM

It is only logical that if we allow these legal entities to outlive humans and continue to build power for the entire duration of their existence that eventually they will seize more and more control over us.

When corporations were first invented they were never intended to last more than a few years.

And now look what they have become.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:52,668
Points:1,241,375
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:54:38 PM

Very simply, money talks!!
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,906
Points:2,953,670
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:45:15 PM

"Because, of course, we all know that corporations and unions have minds of their own and their actions aren't controlled by people... Who can be sentenced to prison, have responsibilities, obligations, and limited lifespans...."

Yes, look at all those people languishing in prison after their financial malfeasance that led to the crash of 2008; or the persons from BP who are serving long sentences for the deaths and destruction caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent massive oil spill.

The fact that no such thing happened shows how seriously our system of justice--our whole governance--takes the protections of the corporate form of organization.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,906
Points:2,953,670
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:42:04 PM

If anyone wants to actually see the text of the proposed amendment, here it is:

‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government
10 and political equality, and to protect the integrity of gov-
11 ernment and the electoral process, Congress and the
1 States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the rais-
2 ing and spending of money by candidates and others to
3 influence elections.
4 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have
5 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate
6 legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons
7 and corporations or other artificial entities created by law,
8 including by prohibiting such entities from spending
9 money to influence elections.
10 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con-
11 strued to grant Congress or the States the power to
12 abridge the freedom of the press.’’.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,738
Points:14,925
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 7:03:16 PM

Because, of course, we all know that corporations and unions have minds of their own and their actions aren't controlled by people... Who can be sentenced to prison, have responsibilities, obligations, and limited lifespans....

Seriously, your anti-corporation mindset has blinded you to simple common sense...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 5:56:33 PM

How about an amendment that says only a human is a person deserving of rights such as free speech?

After all. Neither a corporation nor a union can be sentenced to prison. Why should these legal entities have the rights of people without the responsibilities, obligations or limited lifespan of being a sentient being?
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,765
Points:139,990
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 12:17:09 PM

The primary reason I despise McCain is due to his go-along stupidity with Democrat campaign finance reform. It was stuffed full of meaningless "reform".

It appears they are now wanting to increase meaningless.

The problem is truth in advertising -- make it really easy to prosecute campaign slander and libel against those uttering it.

Spend all you want -- but there will be an expensive penalty for blatantly dishonest accusations.

Thad Cochran should be in Court facing slander and/or Libel charges right now.



[Edited by: e_jeepin at 7/15/2014 12:19:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:52,668
Points:1,241,375
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 12:02:15 PM

"Mind you, I see a lack of willingness in many situations of both major political parties not willing to cede anything--in my opinion, this is very troubling."


And therein lies the problem...in congress and even on these forums.
Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,844
Points:1,515,865
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 9:09:00 AM

Exactly. And, I don't see the need to head straight for a Constitutional Amendment change. Mind you, I see a lack of willingness in many situations of both major political parties not willing to cede anything--in my opinion, this is very troubling.

[Edited by: mweyant at 7/15/2014 9:12:20 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 9:03:55 AM

What is ironic is seeing the strange bedfellows of the Republicans and the ACLU.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,443
Points:1,502,485
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 9:02:20 AM

Liberals Limiting Freedom?
How Ironic?
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,738
Points:14,925
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:48:29 AM

This wouldn't be a problem if we had an informed electorate...

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,186
Points:429,525
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:21:30 AM

While I strongly support limiting or ending the big money flowing into politics I don't like how much power this gives congress.

The changes need to be explicitly outlined in the amendment to reverse citizens united.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,738
Points:14,925
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:21:26 AM

EZ-Exit: "--Now that's fundamentally changing our country,"

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,218
Points:3,741,690
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:20:44 AM

Say it ain't so. Ted Cruz and the ACLU are united in opposing this.

I see a pork belly 10,000 feet up.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:52,668
Points:1,241,375
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 8:12:47 AM

"Can't Congress work on improving the issue of spending money to influence elections without changing a Constitutional amendment? "


That would be too much like right...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,807
Points:2,284,785
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2014 1:08:43 AM

I just read through the text of the proposed amendment, it actually looks like it is redacting the first amendment, and get a load of this quote from the OP's link:

<<<“When Anthony Kennedy asked the Department of Justice if the Obama administration was truly arguing that, according to the Constitution, book sales could be prohibited, the (Obama) Justice official replied, yes, “if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”>>>

--Now that's fundamentally changing our country, and that's scary right there on it's own, while painting a vivid picture of the intended end game.
Post a reply Back to Topics