Democrats All Vote To Gut 1st Amendment...

[S.J.]

Democrats have been trying to control speech since they've been a party. They don't want to eliminate it, they just want to be the only ones allowed to exercise it. This amendment is just another one of their back door approaches to silence their opposition.

 

[Care4all]

Democrats have been trying to control speech since they've been a party. They don't want to eliminate it, they just want to be the only ones allowed to exercise it. This amendment is just another one of their back door approaches to silence their opposition.

Mc cain's a democrat now? Wasn't he the sponsor of McCain/Feingold?

 

[HenryBHough]

Mc cain's a democrat now? Wasn't he the sponsor of McCain/Feingold?

Lifelong CLOSET Democrat. That's why he lost to an OPENLY yet unqualified (perhaps ineligible) Democrat.

 

[S.J.]

Democrats have been trying to control speech since they've been a party. They don't want to eliminate it, they just want to be the only ones allowed to exercise it. This amendment is just another one of their back door approaches to silence their opposition.

Mc cain's a democrat now? Wasn't he the sponsor of McCain/Feingold?

Trying to make it about McCain now, are we? Deflect much?

 

[Little-Acorn]

There's nothing new about the Democrats' desire to prevent the American people from freely deciding who they want to support. They've tried it before, with their so-called "campaign finance reform act", which did pretty much the same thing. It took a Supreme Court decision to point out what they were doing and make people realize their real motive: To shut down anyone who disagreed with them..

Of course, their constant efforts to shut down campaign advertising, never extends to the press, who regularly runs far more favorable coverage of Democrats than Republicans. The Democrats don't dare shut that down... except those who disagree with them, as always: Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unk

Hogwash.

No one is gutting the first amendment.... if YOU were actually concerned with the first amendment and the right of people's voices to be heard, then you would not want to hide behind your words and never let anyone know it is YOU saying it.....

what the Republicans want is for UNKNOWN PEOPLE, even foreigners, to be able to donate to PACS and 501c4's without having to disclose who they are.... donating the money....

so you believe in giving a GHOST the right to free speech that we can not even see....you believe in a ghost's right to free speech, you believe in a ghost's right to elect our presidents and representatives..... SHAME ON YOU!

SHOW US WHO IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN, supporting these political action groups with their money, and you can talk all you want....and express your free speech all you want.

nown donors and foreigners donated to obamashitforbrains, so who is on Americas side? Surely not the idiot in office now.

And if they did, you think THAT is ok? You not only think it is okay, but you think we should double down and increase this? or triple down and give these donors the ability to write these donations for political purposes as donations for charitable purposes and actually get to write it off their taxes as if it is a charity that they are donating to?

MAN OH MAN, is that wrong.

Once again for the slow and stupid the Amendment is dangerous it does not limit the Government nor does it specify what it can do. The amendment as written would allow whom ever controlled the Government to restrict whom ever they wanted with no prevent or oversight.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Hogwash.

No one is gutting the first amendment.... if YOU were actually concerned with the first amendment and the right of people's voices to be heard, then you would not want to hide behind your words and never let anyone know it is YOU saying it.....

what the Republicans want is for UNKNOWN PEOPLE, even foreigners, to be able to donate to PACS and 501c4's without having to disclose who they are.... donating the money....

so you believe in giving a GHOST the right to free speech that we can not even see....you believe in a ghost's right to manipulate we the people, or shout louder than we the people, you believe in a ghost's right to elect our presidents and representatives..... SHAME ON YOU!

SHOW US WHO IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN, supporting these political action groups with their money, and you can talk all you want....and express your free speech all you want.

How many of the Founders published anon........?

 

[Manonthestreet]

The recent pogroms against donors to CA marriage amendment shows what will happen on a larger scale.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our government is the problem, it has too much to do on any given day

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Billc said: ↑

Democrats All Vote To Gut 1st Amendment...

This fails as a straw man fallacy, as you seek to contrive a lie misrepresenting your opponents' position.

That you are a liar comes as no surprise, of course.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The jihads against Walker supporters and and Teaparty groups shows what will happen

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Billc said: ↑

Democrats All Vote To Gut 1st Amendment...

This fails as a straw man fallacy, as you seek to contrive a lie misrepresenting your opponents' position.

That you are a liar comes as no surprise, of course.

Meanwhile the amendment as written provides no safe guards , no limits to Congressional power and no oversight. But since you foolishly believe Dems will be in power you don't care.

 

[2aguy]

Billc,
Why do you WANT these donations that support our politicians to be given in secret? How is that free speech of an individual citizen if the citizen that wants to give their free speech in the form of millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars be HIDDEN.

I used to support full disclosure...but after some of the ballot measures in California ended up with the people donating the money getting targeted by left wing hate groups...it gives me pause on that kind of disclosure...I don't know how you get around it but it is an issue that would need to be dealt with. Maybe you could give money to a super pac...which would allow you to stay anonymous, while everyone would know where the super pac was spending their money...that would keep the private citizen protected from retaliation from lefty hate groups...

You should be able to give as much money as you want, as an individual or as a member of a group of individuals to whoever you want...that is freedom of speech...

Campaigns should not be publicly financed...that is the dream of the guy in office...who has the advantage of having the office...access to media and townhalls...and a taxpayer paid staff....

Term limits...for the House and Senate...3 terms for the House 1 Term in the Senate...that will do the trick...that protects me from your guy if he is corrupt but has been there so long you can't or won't get rid of him...dittos for my guy...

 

[2aguy]

The recent pogroms against donors to CA marriage amendment shows what will happen on a larger scale.

The jihads against Walker supporters and and Teaparty groups shows what will happen

And that is why I am growing against the idea of having to let people know how and to who you donated your money to...they can use that as a way to get you fired, possibly, or as a way to hurt you in your community...

Keep in mind...

Republicans play politics, they win some, they lose some, they wait for the next election...democrats fight complete and total political war against their enemies and take no prisoners...they will make you pay...

 

[tosacco]

Publicly fund national elections & institute term limits. Problem solved

I rarely agree with you but I think this is the right way to go about it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

RWs should be thrilled to learn that money won and the people lost.

Will you ever learn this simple fact:

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RWs should be thrilled to learn that money won and the people lost.

Will you ever learn this simple fact:

The SPECIFIC Amendment as written has no oversight, no limits on what a Congress can do and no safeguards. It is vague and allows to much power to whom ever happens to control the Congress.It supercedes the 1st Amendments protection and offers no protection from the Government at all.

 

[Dana7360]

Yes, the democrats voted for a bill that would allow the greedy, corrupt politcians to decide who you can give money to and how much you can give before an election...nice of them...

The Democrats Escalate Their War On Free Speech Power Line

On Thursday, Harry Reid brought SJ Res 19, to repeal the heart of the First Amendment, to the Senate floor for a vote. The result must be considered stunning by all Americans who value their freedoms. Every Senate Democrat–every one, a 54-vote majority–voted for First Amendment repeal. Here is the roll call of infamy; click to enlarge:

Why have the Democrats pushed the Udall amendment, knowing that it can’t possibly pass? They are playing a long game, I think. Historically, the idea of repealing the First Amendment would have been unthinkable. The purpose of the Udall amendment, I believe, is to mainstream what has always, until now, been inconceivable. The public is being accustomed to the idea that the First Amendment might be repealed–not flag burning and nude dancing, but the innermost core of the amendment, supporting and opposing candidates in elections–and if the Democrats ever have the votes, it will be.

What a bunch of garbage.

All that does is reverse the citizens united ruling.

America was just fine for over 200 years without that ruling. No one gutted the first amendment unless you're saying that for over 200 years the first amendment was gutted and that the founders wrote an amendment that gutted itself.

Corporations aren't people and money isn't speech.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, the democrats voted for a bill that would allow the greedy, corrupt politcians to decide who you can give money to and how much you can give before an election...nice of them...

The Democrats Escalate Their War On Free Speech Power Line

On Thursday, Harry Reid brought SJ Res 19, to repeal the heart of the First Amendment, to the Senate floor for a vote. The result must be considered stunning by all Americans who value their freedoms. Every Senate Democrat–every one, a 54-vote majority–voted for First Amendment repeal. Here is the roll call of infamy; click to enlarge:

Why have the Democrats pushed the Udall amendment, knowing that it can’t possibly pass? They are playing a long game, I think. Historically, the idea of repealing the First Amendment would have been unthinkable. The purpose of the Udall amendment, I believe, is to mainstream what has always, until now, been inconceivable. The public is being accustomed to the idea that the First Amendment might be repealed–not flag burning and nude dancing, but the innermost core of the amendment, supporting and opposing candidates in elections–and if the Democrats ever have the votes, it will be.

What a bunch of garbage.

All that does is reverse the citizens united ruling.

America was just fine for over 200 years without that ruling. No one gutted the first amendment unless you're saying that for over 200 years the first amendment was gutted and that the founders wrote an amendment that gutted itself.

Corporations aren't people and money isn't speech.

Read the amendment it does not "just reverse a decision by the Supreme Court, as written it Specifically gives power to Congress from the day it is approved to determine what, who, and how much ANYONE can give to political campaigns.

 

[Dana7360]

Publicly fund national elections

So, you want to use tax money to help these greedy, corrupt people hold their office while they steal your money...yeah...good idea....we pay to keep them in office...

Next idea...

They already do.

Have you ever filled out a tax form? Right there on the form it asks you if you want to contribute money to the matching funds program.


In American politics the term matching funds refers to the money a presidential candidate is given by federal government to match the money they have raised personally. Candidates can expect up to US$250 extra from public funds for each contribution from an individual they receive.

This usually only applies to the two main parties; as in order for a candidate to gain the benefits of matching funds, they must have received 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. Hence the anomaly of Ross Perot standing as Reform Party candidate in 1992 and receiving 18% of the vote, yet receiving no matching funds because the Reform Party did not receive 5% of the vote in 1988; whilst Pat Buchanan, running as the Reform Party candidate in 2000, did receive matching funds despite winning only 0.4% of the vote.

The source of the funds comes from a $3 voluntary checkoff on the U.S. Income Tax form.