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.
Why would you want to limit my free speech? I should be able to give as much money as I desire to any politician and/or any PAC. It is my money, and how I spend it is entirely up to me.
Your ideas of freedom of speech elevates the old adage "money talks and BS walks" ... to an entirely new level of cognitive dissonance.
Nobody here wants to limit your "free speech" ... though I'm sure many would prefer you to spice it up a bit more with a dash of common sense. But in any event, you are free to spout to your heart's desire, and I'd fight in order to defend your right to say what's on your mind. But nowhere in the 1st amendment or anywhere else in the constitution will you find the right to purchase political influence by bribing public officials. And this was the central matter in the big battle for Corporations seeking to be legally classified as a "Person". And, not surprisingly, there were enough political hacks installed on the supreme court to secure that status, in spite of the mind numbing absurdity of such a decision.
What seems to be missing in your constitutional rhetoric is balance. You can't just pick and choose what fits your argument, while ignoring that which doesn't. And the basic principle of our system of electing public officials centers on "One person, one vote" .... that underlying principle demands that each person has an equal "voice" in the matters of selecting their representatives. However, that is impossible when private money can be used to drown out the voices of the majority in favor of those with a very unequal supply of money ... which you seem to have confused with words and language.
You also seem to want to suggest that because money has always been a part of politics, that alone makes it proper and legitimate. However, this too lacks any semblance of logic ... as bank robbery has always existed, but I doubt you'll try to use the same argument there?
The OP video hit the nail on the head, and the only shocking part is that it was actually aired on national TV .... I guess the powers that be have been sufficiently convinced that they no longer need to be fearful of the truth getting out because there aren't enough Americans out there smart enough to know what to do with the truth when it is handed to them gift wrapped.
Nevertheless, the only way we can ever hope to restore legitimate representative government in this country is to remove private money finance of political campaigns because there are too many greedy crooks .. too many crooks with plentiful money supplies, and never a shortage of public officials with their corrupt outstretched hands.
And you can never expect these crooks to achieve legitimate "campaign finance reform" because the bribe takers outnumber the honest ones, and they will never give up their flows of money voluntarily. Every time such efforts are engaged, it's all a big show, and the results are even greater levels of corruption.
You can alter the reality. Supreme Court rulings are only temporary, like their rulings on slavery and segregation.
Until it is changed, the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Those cases were not argued correctly. I could have done a better job. My dog Marko could have done a better job.
I disagree, I thought they were argued well and that the Supreme Court made the correct decision to protect and preserve our inherent right to free speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
If that were true, then the extent of your "free speech" would be tied to the amount of wealth you have, which is a scary thought, considering so few have any wealth.
How would that be any different from the amount of free speech someone has when they carry a bullhorn, or has access to the media? Nobody ever said anyone was entitled to a platform to express their freedom of speech. Therefore, there will always be some with better access or more free speech than others. It is free speech, not equal speech. Or are you suggesting that everyone be allowed the exact same access to the media and other sources in order to voice their opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Because you're influencing the laws that are enacted.
Incorrect. The politician writes the law, I merely help ensure the politician, that gets elected as a result of my contributions, shares my ideology. Or I may contribute to a PAC that works with politicians to get particular legislation enacted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I'm not proposing an alteration of the Bill of Rights either.
Actually, you are. Since the Supreme Court has already established that political contributions by individuals and corporations alike are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, the only way to alter their decision is by altering the First Amendment with another amendment. Or get a different Supreme Court. Good luck with that, since it was two completely different courts that made the exact same ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No one's rights are being restricted.
Of course you are restricting people's inherent rights. First, you would prevent them from assembling peacefully with the intent of raising grievances with their government by forming a PAC. Then you would prevent them from contributing to a PAC or have that PAC in turn contribute to a politician or have the PAC work with representatives to get specific legislation enacted. All these things violate my First Amendment rights.
Whether you like it or not, people have the right to peacefully assemble, form a PAC, and express their ideology to their representatives in any manner they choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Corporations are over-represented. The interests of a corporation are represented by the share-holders, the employees, the board members, the staff, management, and all of the presidents, vice-presidents and chief officers.
In other words, a corporation gets more than one vote to cast in any election.
Corporations get no vote, but they do have a significant voice on political issues. As I said, it is not about equal speech, only free speech, and they are just as free as anyone to seek representation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Well then we'll just have to enact an Amendment that bars corporations from contributing.
That will never happen since it would require altering the First Amendment in order to overturn the Supreme Court rulings, and nobody that tries to alter the First Amendment would survive the attempt.
Of course you are. I have the right to peacefully assemble, form an organization of like-minded people, and bring my grievances before my representatives. You would prevent me from doing any of those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
What seems to be missing in your constitutional rhetoric is balance. You can't just pick and choose what fits your argument, while ignoring that which doesn't. And the basic principle of our system of electing public officials centers on "One person, one vote" .... that underlying principle demands that each person has an equal "voice" in the matters of selecting their representatives. However, that is impossible when private money can be used to drown out the voices of the majority in favor of those with a very unequal supply of money ... which you seem to have confused with words and language.
That is where you are wrong. It has never been about equal speech, only free speech. Equal speech is an impossibility, there will always be those with more access than others. Whether it is someone with a bullhorn in a crowd of people, or someone on the national media, or some corporation will lots of money. Speech will never be equal, but it should always be free. You are arguing for something that can never exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You also seem to want to suggest that because money has always been a part of politics, that alone makes it proper and legitimate. However, this too lacks any semblance of logic ... as bank robbery has always existed, but I doubt you'll try to use the same argument there?
The OP video hit the nail on the head, and the only shocking part is that it was actually aired on national TV .... I guess the powers that be have been sufficiently convinced that they no longer need to be fearful of the truth getting out because there aren't enough Americans out there smart enough to know what to do with the truth when it is handed to them gift wrapped.
Nevertheless, the only way we can ever hope to restore legitimate representative government in this country is to remove private money finance of political campaigns because there are too many greedy crooks .. too many crooks with plentiful money supplies, and never a shortage of public officials with their corrupt outstretched hands.
And you can never expect these crooks to achieve legitimate "campaign finance reform" because the bribe takers outnumber the honest ones, and they will never give up their flows of money voluntarily. Every time such efforts are engaged, it's all a big show, and the results are even greater levels of corruption.
Money has always been part of politics because money has always represented the fruits of our labor. By contributing money to politicians you are, in effect, contributing your labor toward achieving that politicians goal.
Instead of continually writing your representative to express your ideology, you could find a PAC that represents your ideology and contribute money (viz., your labor) toward achieving your goal.
What I choose to do with my labor (viz., my money) is nobodies business but my own. If I want to write a draft legislation for my representative to consider, or pay someone to write it for me, that is entirely my business. You are equally free to do the same.
Of course you are. I have the right to peacefully assemble, form an organization of like-minded people, and bring my grievances before my representatives. You would prevent me from doing any of those things.
Really? In what way?
Quote:
What I choose to do with my labor (viz., my money) is nobodies business but my own.
Not true, there are plenty of things you 'could' do with your money that would be illegal. Pay a hit man to murder someone for instance.
Bribing politicians should be another on that list of illegal things to do with money.
By prohibiting PACs and contributions to PACs and politicians, you would be violating several of my First Amendment rights, not least of which is my freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
Not true, there are plenty of things you 'could' do with your money that would be illegal. Pay a hit man to murder someone for instance.
Bribing politicians should be another on that list of illegal things to do with money.
There are plenty of things I could do with my labor that are illegal as well.
Instead of continually writing your representative to express your ideology, you could find a PAC that represents your ideology and contribute money (viz., your labor) toward achieving your goal.
What I choose to do with my labor (viz., my money) is nobodies business but my own. If I want to write a draft legislation for my representative to consider, or pay someone to write it for me, that is entirely my business. You are equally free to do the same.
What you are advocating is bribery, not free speech. You also have a right to relocate your lawless philosophy to a Banana Republic to exercise your free speech by opening your wallet. There are plenty of choices out there for those with your mindset.
Here ... we are supposed to be law abiding, and that means you do not have a right to BUY politicians to further your agenda. The decisions made are supposed to be what is best for the country and the people as a whole ... not what's best for those special interests with the deepest pockets.
This is really simple ... look up the word "Bribe" .... Bribe- to persuade or influence someone to act in your favor by illegally offering money or other inducements.
You want to stifle everyone else's "free speech" by stuffing dollars into the ears of THEIR representatives who will then only be willing to listen to YOU.
By prohibiting PACs and contributions to PACs and politicians, you would be violating several of my First Amendment rights, not least of which is my freedom of speech.
There are plenty of things I could do with my labor that are illegal as well.
What is your point?
Special Interests also, are quite free via freedom of speech to buy media time and say they support such and such politicians as well. They would then have to say what special interest they belong to so it is open and transparent.
You do believe in transparency do you not?
As it is, Politicians should also be required to wear patches in donation order of the donors giving them money.
Again, transparency, so that the people can see who stands behind them.
This is a representative democracy where the rule of law and an open and transparent political platform should be on the table at all times so that people can truly elect who they feel bests represents them. This is in the spirit of founding fathers.
As it is now, there is nothing transparent about our government nor their backers, and the political process is sold to the highest bidder under the cover of darkness, without the public awareness.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,178 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
No, we cannot agree. Some idiot talking head on MSNBC (of all places ) does not have the vaguest clue what he is talking about. Obviously he has overdosed on children's indoctrination cartoons. You know the kind - "corporations are EVIL, more government is GOOD."
Instead of trying to sponge off the work of others, get a job and earn your own damn money, or become known as the parasite generation.
He's right.
And no, corporations are not evil.
The fact is our government is owned by international corporations that xfer wealth from the people of this country who are no more than a national resource from a centralized political perspective to their interests.
You are still caught in the Right (pro-corporate) vs left (pro-government) mind-set he is talking about. Both parties are owned and until you get that both parties OWN YOU.
What you are advocating is bribery, not free speech. You also have a right to relocate your lawless philosophy to a Banana Republic to exercise your free speech by opening your wallet. There are plenty of choices out there for those with your mindset.
Here ... we are supposed to be law abiding, and that means you do not have a right to BUY politicians to further your agenda. The decisions made are supposed to be what is best for the country and the people as a whole ... not what's best for those special interests with the deepest pockets.
This is really simple ... look up the word "Bribe" .... Bribe- to persuade or influence someone to act in your favor by illegally offering money or other inducements.
You want to stifle everyone else's "free speech" by stuffing dollars into the ears of THEIR representatives who will then only be willing to listen to YOU.
What I am advocating is my right to address my grievances with government. Nothing I do is illegal, and to imply that it is demonstrates your fascism. Nobody would have any inherent rights if you had your way. Like I said, you have the typical Hitler, Stalin, and Mao oppressive mentality.
By prohibiting PACs and contributions to PACs and politicians, you would be violating several of my First Amendment rights, not least of which is my freedom of speech.
Yes, that is your claim. Now please give details as to HOW this would violate your rights. That is what I was asking, not for you to restate your claim again.
Quote:
There are plenty of things I could do with my labor that are illegal as well.
What is your point?
My point was to refute your comment that 'anything you do with your money is your own business and no one else's'.
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.
) does not have the vaguest clue what he is talking about. Obviously he has overdosed on children's indoctrination cartoons. You know the kind - "corporations are EVIL, more government is GOOD."
