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.
Has nothing to do with YOU, YOU are not big business nor are your the very wealthy and if you are I would say you should have no more Free Speech than any other Citizen.
I would prefer each nominated candidate should get the same amount of money and radio, tv, and printed advert time, meaning everyone is on equal footing, then let them run a fair race and let the best person win.
So you think freedom of speech should be abridged? Would you apply your restrictions to newspaper editorials? To TV programs? Would you ban books and movies? Would you prohibit the Sierra club from taking out advertisements? How much free speech would you allow us?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,533,663 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
They don't have more free speech than an average American. They simply have more resources to enable mass communication. So? The media already possesses this power. Ever seen a newspaper's editorial board endorsing a candidate? Free press, right? So the editorial board can use the power of their mass media to endorse a candidate, but a corporation cannot buy the ad space on the next page to do the same? Why does the editorial board, by virtue of position within mass media, have "more free speech" than those who would purchase advertising space in same mass media vehicle?
And the incumbent party in the White House commands the netowrks whenever the White House pleases. The opposition to the party in the White House, whatever form they take, public or private, starts with a huge disadvantage in mass media messaging. Is that fair, that the incumbent party has a legally mandated advatage that nobody is allowed to challenege? How is incumbency protection from criticism, opposing viewpoints and alternate messages by restricting access to mass media fair or anywhere near promoting democracy?
Here's why Democrats want this now - it gives the advantage back to the incumbent party by stifling effective opposition. If there was a Republican in the White House, as there was when the McCain-Feingold abomination went into law, you'd see a near total reversal of the vote totals. Point being, the incumbents always want the law to favor their incumbency.
If Bill Gates, George Soros, or Oprah Winfrey feel like dropping a couple $billion into telling you why Republicans suck, good for them. It's their money, so let them. If the Koch Bros feel like spending a similar amount extolling the virtues of libertarianism, good for them, it's their money. And if the shareholders of GlobalMegaCorp_01 feel like tossing a $billion at railing against Barack Obama...so what? Editorial boards of newspapers, TV news pundits, and journalists take to mass media sopaboxes for free all the time....so why can't people pay for the same privilege if they have the coin?
Right now, Barack Obama can get on TV, say anything he pleases, and then walk away. Nobody challenges him, nobody can disagree with him, nobody can cross-examine him. OK, fine. But these ridiculous campaign finance and speech restrictions only serve to make sure nobody can even deliver an opposing dialogue pertaining to his speech. That's not right. If someone with money has the ability to produce a message, LET THEM. More information is better, more debate is better. If it takes money, then so be it.
42 votes for free speech. Yippee. Wish it was 100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Good analysis. But the sheeple are brainwashed by their politicians.
How on Earth do either of you believe that to be a good analysis of the situation.
Volobjectitarian, Your argument is the equivalent of saying one person is equal to a corporation and they are not.
1 person is one person, a corporation can be a couple of hundred thousand, with in your own words more resources.
Most individuals can not pay for a full page spread in the NY Times. They can not personally finance a candidates multimillion dollar campaign.
You can argue that free speech is free speech regardless of where it comes from, but trying to argue that it is equal, when even your own comment says it isnt is just naive.
Your second paragraph does not even make sense. In 2 years, there will be no incumbent in the white house.
And you do realize the Feingold in McCain-Feingold stands for Russ Feinfold (D-WI) right and that 49 of the 60 Yes votes were Democrats right. There were only 51 Dems in the senate at the time counting independents.
The entire Premise of your argument that who is in the White House effects how Dems would vote on the issue is completely wrong.
Campaign finance reform would not stop anyone from speaking up on an issue, If Nike wants to support an issue, they can, but the law would only stop them from supporting a specific candidate.
How on Earth do either of you believe that to be a good analysis of the situation.
Volobjectitarian, Your argument is the equivalent of saying one person is equal to a corporation and they are not.
1 person is one person, a corporation can be a couple of hundred thousand, with in your own words more resources.
The amendment is not about corporations. It's about giving Congress the authority to put whatever limits on campaign spending that it chooses. It gives Congress the power to limit campaign spending any way they wish. So yes, it is all about freedom of speech. Congress could tell you that you cannot spend $100 on a billboard if they chose to. Congress could ban books and movies if they chose to. Congress could ban the NRA from doing a TV show or the Sierra Club from doing interviews in a magazine.
Read a little about it.
---------------------------
This measure would allow Congress to impose limits on contributions to candidates, spending by candidates and spending by anyone trying to influence the outcome of an election.
It would have a stifling effect on political debate by curbing ads about those running and the issues at stake. "It is intended to limit speech about elections, and it would do just that," legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. It "would shrink the First Amendment and in doing so set a precedent that would be both disturbing and alarming."
Well, what do you know? The GOP finally got one right.
Any attempt to infringe on speech should NEVER happen. In other words, no liberal idea concerning campaigns, speech, elections, anything, should EVER be followed.
How is the candidate for sale because the government cannot control who can say what or when before an election, which is what this bill hopes to amend into the Constitution?
You have to remember that there are a whole bunch of people out there and simply can't understand accountability.
They'll say, "Corporations have too much influence over candidates."
You'll say, "How?"
They'll say, "They tell them how to vote."
You'll say, "If the politicians are allowing corporations to tell them how to vote, doesn't that mean the politician isn't doing his job and representing his constituents? Can't politicians just say no."
They'll say, "It's the game, the politicians don't have a choice."
The amendment is not about corporations. It's about giving Congress the authority to put whatever limits on campaign spending that it chooses. It gives Congress the power to limit campaign spending any way they wish. So yes, it is all about freedom of speech. Congress could tell you that you cannot spend $100 on a billboard if they chose to. Congress could ban books and movies if they chose to. Congress could ban the NRA from doing a TV show or the Sierra Club from doing interviews in a magazine.
Read a little about it.
---------------------------
This measure would allow Congress to impose limits on contributions to candidates, spending by candidates and spending by anyone trying to influence the outcome of an election.
It would have a stifling effect on political debate by curbing ads about those running and the issues at stake. "It is intended to limit speech about elections, and it would do just that," legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. It "would shrink the First Amendment and in doing so set a precedent that would be both disturbing and alarming."
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,533,663 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
The amendment is not about corporations. It's about giving Congress the authority to put whatever limits on campaign spending that it chooses. It gives Congress the power to limit campaign spending any way they wish. So yes, it is all about freedom of speech. Congress could tell you that you cannot spend $100 on a billboard if they chose to. Congress could ban books and movies if they chose to. Congress could ban the NRA from doing a TV show or the Sierra Club from doing interviews in a magazine.
Read a little about it.
---------------------------
This measure would allow Congress to impose limits on contributions to candidates, spending by candidates and spending by anyone trying to influence the outcome of an election.
It would have a stifling effect on political debate by curbing ads about those running and the issues at stake. "It is intended to limit speech about elections, and it would do just that," legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. It "would shrink the First Amendment and in doing so set a precedent that would be both disturbing and alarming."
That's called freedom. It's part of living in a free society. Next you're going to say why should wealthy people get to live in bigger houses than poor people.
Yes, other people have more money than you do. They can use that money to do things you can't. Too bad. Suck it up or go make some money yourself.
And I don't say this as a rich person, just as a person capable of critical thought. Logic dictates that government telling private citizens what they can and can't buy is not conducive to a free society.
Why would I care what size home a person lives in? I believe you are assuming something that is untrue, or should I say you are grasping at straws, yes that sounds right.
Some do, many don't, I would venture to guess I am far more well off then you are now or ever will be.
Buy things, you mean like political offices and representatives, does that not taint the voting process, oh wait I forgot who I was talking to. Just don't complain about your government it is the best money can buy.
So, you want me to "read up" on your opinion article ?
Because it's not the change you think it is.
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.
