Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you see any exclusions in the 1st amendment? No, me either. Of course a business has a freedom of speech.
My self interests are in free speech. Any viewpoint may use it. If you do not approve of what a politician is doing don't vote for them. It's a simple concept.
In your world I am sure a business is a person, back here on Earth a business is not a person.
A business is an individual or a group of individuals who assemble together for the purpose of engaging in profitable trade. They are not soulless creations that simply occur at random, they are groups of people. And the 1st Amendment still makes no distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
Does not matter how I or you vote if that politician can buy their office, I am sure you will use your double standard when the Libs do the same to you and a candidate you were supporting.
How exactly does a politician "buy" their way into office using the advocacy spending of a business? Citizens United made a film critical of Hillary Clinton. How exactly does that buy the office for Barack Obama (her primary opponent in 2008) or the GOP candidate? Michael Moore made a film that grossed $millions that was critical of George Bush and essentially blamed him for everything going back to the dinosaurs becoming extinct, and the movie was advertised inside the 60 day window of the 2004 election. Help me out here....who won the 2004 general election for President?
Still not seeing how corporate spending "buys" an office, since votes are what elects people, not money, and a corporation cannot tell its employees who to vote for, nor can a politician. End of the day, we each get to vote however we want, and so far as I know, there is no legal way to offer your vote for cash.
Additionally, a corporation running a national TV spot even the night before an election is still not "buying" on office, because a) the vote of the entire public is still not for sale, b) just because an ad runs and you see it does not dictate your vote the next day, and c) if corporation_A runs that spot, can't corporation_b run one counter to it that same night, since they all enjoy the right to spend as they like on advocacy?
The marketplace of ideas is more free, meaning more ideas will be broadcast more widely to more people. How does this equate to "buying" an office?
And if we get past all that, how is a corporation buying advocacy print/airtime a worse thing than an incumbent promising to give away taxpayer money to various voting blocs if they vote for them? At least a corporation is only buying advertising as well as using their own money, which was earned via voluntary trade. The politician who secures votes with promises of wealth transfer is using money they took by force of law which was taken for another purpose that they are now re-appropriating?
Here's the bottom line - you like the party in the White House/Senate. Huge spending on anti-Democrat advocacy hurts them and weakens their incumbency advantage. You know this and you don't like it any more than your Democrat masters do. Here's the sugar to help that medicine go down - eventually, the GOP will hold the White House and the Senate, and this weakening of the incumbent's media advantage will then work in your favor, as it will weaken the GOP incumbency's control of the marketplace of ideas. THAT'S A GOOD THING.
Maybe you can point out where they believed a Business is covered under the Rights of a Citizen.
1st + 9th + 10th Amendments. Done.
Is it enumerated anywhere in the Constitution that the Bill of Rights does not apply to a group of people assembled for the purpose of earning profit? If it isn't specifically enumerated, it belongs to the people and the states, and if the right is not mentioned, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Nothing in our Constitution removes rights because of legal associations.
In your world I am sure a business is a person, back here on Earth a business is not a person.
I'm wasting my time.
Quote:
Does not matter how I or you vote if that politician can buy their office, I am sure you will use your double standard when the Libs do the same to you and a candidate you were supporting.
Mine was once the liberal argument. As far as I'm concerned it still is. It's not liberalism that's changed, it's extreme partisanship that has.
I stand on the side of the ACLU here. If money can buy your vote, that is your problem, don't try and restrict my rights because you are unable to vote your conscience.
A business is an individual or a group of individuals who assemble together for the purpose of engaging in profitable trade. They are not soulless creations that simply occur at random, they are groups of people. And the 1st Amendment still makes no distinction.
How exactly does a politician "buy" their way into office using the advocacy spending of a business? Citizens United made a film critical of Hillary Clinton. How exactly does that buy the office for Barack Obama (her primary opponent in 2008) or the GOP candidate? Michael Moore made a film that grossed $millions that was critical of George Bush and essentially blamed him for everything going back to the dinosaurs becoming extinct, and the movie was advertised inside the 60 day window of the 2004 election. Help me out here....who won the 2004 general election for President?
Still not seeing how corporate spending "buys" an office, since votes are what elects people, not money, and a corporation cannot tell its employees who to vote for, nor can a politician. End of the day, we each get to vote however we want, and so far as I know, there is no legal way to offer your vote for cash.
Additionally, a corporation running a national TV spot even the night before an election is still not "buying" on office, because a) the vote of the entire public is still not for sale, b) just because an ad runs and you see it does not dictate your vote the next day, and c) if corporation_A runs that spot, can't corporation_b run one counter to it that same night, since they all enjoy the right to spend as they like on advocacy?
The marketplace of ideas is more free, meaning more ideas will be broadcast more widely to more people. How does this equate to "buying" an office?
And if we get past all that, how is a corporation buying advocacy print/airtime a worse thing than an incumbent promising to give away taxpayer money to various voting blocs if they vote for them? At least a corporation is only buying advertising as well as using their own money, which was earned via voluntary trade. The politician who secures votes with promises of wealth transfer is using money they took by force of law which was taken for another purpose that they are now re-appropriating?
Here's the bottom line - you like the party in the White House/Senate. Huge spending on anti-Democrat advocacy hurts them and weakens their incumbency advantage. You know this and you don't like it any more than your Democrat masters do. Here's the sugar to help that medicine go down - eventually, the GOP will hold the White House and the Senate, and this weakening of the incumbent's media advantage will then work in your favor, as it will weaken the GOP incumbency's control of the marketplace of ideas. THAT'S A GOOD THING.
Those people still have their Freedom of Speech and a business is not a person why would you give them a second right to the same freedom they already enjoy. Not logical.
One can easily buy an elected position if they have many times the other candidate does to spend on advertising and getting their ideas put before the public, not to mentioned to be used to attack the other candidate that does not have the funds to defend against the attacks. I find it interesting that it is always Cons that defend against reforms to the monies that can be spent, that is until the tactic works against them then they are all for reforms in funding. Go head and make as many excuses and try rewriting the definition of a person all you wish, you are only convincing yourself and those that already believe in that nonsense in the false belief that somehow a business can fund a candidate and that candidate will still serve the voters over those that actually put them in office, Big Business.
As much as it may bother you, businessmen (or women) are citizens.
Does not bother me one bit and as such they have the same rights as anyone else, but trying to equate that same rule to a business is ludicrous. But as I can see you do not grasp the concept
Maybe you can point out where they believed a Business is covered under the Rights of a Citizen.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Please point to the portion of the 2nd amendment above that says congress can limit the speech of anything or any animal or any fence post or any person or any slave or any man or any woman or any child or any group of people such as a club or a union or a business or a church or a political party or a PAC or a citizen or a non citizen or an illegal alien or a Canadian or a German, or a martian, etc.
"NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH" is really a very simple concept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
