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.
According to Democrat Representative Donna Edwards:
“But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it's corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and--and under our Constitution.”
Fully regulated speech? That sure sounds like a censorship issue to me.
Funny how you left out the first part of the quote.
“And so, you know, the traditional rights of free speech that we have known as citizens would not be disturbed by any of these constitutional amendments. But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it's corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and--and under our Constitution.”
“And so, you know, the traditional rights of free speech that we have known as citizens would not be disturbed by any of these constitutional amendments. But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it's corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and--and under our Constitution.”
If this quote is accurate then MSNBC or any other news channel for that matter which are headed by corporations would be subject to this amendment? How could you interpret that any other way?
I know you want to separate the two but you can't. MSNBC and the news hour from XYZ corporation which is bashing the policies of administration are fundamentally the same thing.
You're getting onto some very dangerous ground giving the power to Congress and/or some bureaucrat to decide what is or is not political speech.
>If this works towards overturning the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I'm all for it.<
Yup. Just make it include unions AND corps. Hits both sides.
The founding fathers never could have imagined mass media being bought where billionaires buy the election. In a way if you vote for Romney you are voting for the Koch Bros or Obama you are voting for Soros.
Many of these ads by superpacs are little more than Michael Mooresqe half truth distortions.
Gotta shower now. I agree with Pelosi. I feel icky.
If this quote is accurate then MSNBC or any other news channel for that matter which are headed by corporations would be subject to this amendment? How could you interpret that any other way?
I know you want to separate the two but you can't. MSNBC and the news hour from XYZ corporation which is bashing the policies of administration are fundamentally the same thing.
You're getting onto some very dangerous ground giving the power to Congress and/or some bureaucrat to decide what is or is not political speech.
If this quote is accurate then MSNBC or any other news channel for that matter which are headed by corporations would be subject to this amendment? How could you interpret that any other way?
Why "interpret" it?
There is a very good reason why people interested in what is true versus what the spin portrays look beyond the off-the-cuff comment and check to see what the proposal actually is. It is designed to completely protect the rights of individuals and the press (as the First Amendment was intended), while removing the ability of corporations and unions to make unlimited and unaccountable contributions to unlimited and unaccountable SuperPacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I know you want to separate the two but you can't. MSNBC and the news hour from XYZ corporation which is bashing the policies of administration are fundamentally the same thing.
That is just dumb. It is merely a trivial issue of explicit language in the Amendment that can and would make the necessary distinction.
The English language is not a blunt instrument.
I have no idea if the author of the OP's tiny, ambiguous and overwrought article is dishonest or stupid... but I do know that the folks in this thread who have been wringing their hands over what the proposal actually does not say are pretty easily excited.
There are quite a few individuals in prison due to Enron, but since when did going to prison, qualify one as a person?
Babies dont go to prison, are you telling me they arent people? Mentally handicapped, nope, they usually dont either. Dont think they are people either?
IMHO - Corporations are NOT people and never have been. They are organizations created to limit investor liability to the initial investment instead of their entire wealth. They have no more right to buy political campaigns than they do to vote. They are not alive and they are not citizens.
Our Constitution has to be ratified to reflect this reality.
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.
