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.
And to all the people quoting poll data saying Americans support campaign finance reform; the constitution clearly defines how to amend said constitution. SCOTUS is not here to make decisions based on popularity, but to make decisions based on the constitution.
And to all the people quoting poll data saying Americans support campaign finance reform; the constitution clearly defines how to amend said constitution. SCOTUS is not here to make decisions based on popularity, but to make decisions based on the constitution.
And the Constitution says that people with deeper pockets get more freedom of speech?
I don't think the Constitution says money is free speech.
Limits on campaign donations are to ensure that representatives represent their constituents. Limits were imposed because money influences the representatives to vote in certain ways. This Court may choose to ignore that reality, but it's still the reality.
And the Constitution says that people with deeper pockets get more freedom of speech?
I don't think the Constitution says money is free speech.
Limits on campaign donations are to ensure that representatives represent their constituents. Limits were imposed because money influences the representatives to vote in certain ways. This Court may choose to ignore that reality, but it's still the reality.
Spending your money is free speech. What is the difference between donating money to a politician or putting up a bill board advertisement for said politician?
Again, the reality of the situation does not matter, just the legality of the law in re to the constitution. Following the constitution in spite of public outcry is the exact opisit of judicial activism.
If you think the constitution should be chnaged see Article V of said document.
Spending your money is free speech. What is the difference between donating money to a politician or putting up a bill board advertisement for said politician?
Again, the reality of the situation does not matter, just the legality of the law in re to the constitution. Following the constitution in spite of public outcry is the exact opisit of judicial activism.
If you think the constitution should be chnaged see Article V of said document.
Where does it say in the Constitution that "spending your money is free speech"?
Legally, we have lots of restrictions on how you can spend your money? You can't spend your money to pay someone to kill your wife. And you can't spend your money to buy a politician's vote on a certain issue. Or can you? Because it's generally not a mystery what large donors' political stances are on certain issues. And it can be challenging to prove that a large donation influenced a politician's vote. But we know that large donations do influence politicians. That's why Americans asked their legislature to restrict and limit donations, that's why Americans wanted campaign reform.
The Constitution doesn't say that "spending your money is free speech." Doesn't say it anywhere. A court has asserted parity, but their assertion is not based on the Constitution, and it is against the interests of the American political system, which is for THE PEOPLE, not for just THE RICH PEOPLE.
Where does it say in the Constitution that "spending your money is free speech"?
Legally, we have lots of restrictions on how you can spend your money? You can't spend your money to pay someone to kill your wife. And you can't spend your money to buy a politician's vote on a certain issue. Or can you? Because it's generally not a mystery what large donors' political stances are on certain issues. And it can be challenging to prove that a large donation influenced a politician's vote. But we know that large donations do influence politicians. That's why Americans asked their legislature to restrict and limit donations, that's why Americans wanted campaign reform.
The Constitution doesn't say that "spending your money is free speech." Doesn't say it anywhere. A court has asserted parity, but their assertion is not based on the Constitution, and it is against the interests of the American political system, which is for THE PEOPLE, not for just THE RICH PEOPLE.
So you can yell all you want but you may not be able to spend money on pen and paper?
This is the real problem with the political process.
Decisions like this make it harder to vote for a decent candidate or one that was bought and paid for.
Why do you allow people to buy your vote? Every time this comes up we get the same lame excuses. I ask the one complaining why they allow people to buy their vote and they claim they don't the problem is others do. Unfortunately nobody will say they do and the facts show it doesn't make a real difference.
The vast majority is going to vote for the letter after a candidates name regardless of anything else.
It's been noted that Alderson gave $100 million dollars to get Romney elected. How did that turn out? The Dems spent an incredible amount of money in the recent Florida special election and still lost.
Reid paid of his granddaughter with campaign money illegally and absolutely nothing was done about it. Where is the problem here exactly?
Where does it say in the Constitution that "spending your money is free speech"?
Legally, we have lots of restrictions on how you can spend your money? You can't spend your money to pay someone to kill your wife. And you can't spend your money to buy a politician's vote on a certain issue. Or can you? Because it's generally not a mystery what large donors' political stances are on certain issues. And it can be challenging to prove that a large donation influenced a politician's vote. But we know that large donations do influence politicians. That's why Americans asked their legislature to restrict and limit donations, that's why Americans wanted campaign reform.
The Constitution doesn't say that "spending your money is free speech." Doesn't say it anywhere. A court has asserted parity, but their assertion is not based on the Constitution, and it is against the interests of the American political system, which is for THE PEOPLE, not for just THE RICH PEOPLE.
So change the constitution. But how I spend my money to support certain political beliefes is certainly free speech. I could spend a billion dollars on the elections but I still only get to cast one vote on Election Day.
So you can yell all you want but you may not be able to spend money on pen and paper?
Solid spin effort.
You can yell all you want.
But restrictions on political donations are not Unconstitutional, since such restrictions serve to prevent corruption of the political process. In a Republic, deeper pockets do not entitle a person to more influence in the government.
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.
