Democrats All Vote To Gut 1st Amendment...

[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 The public is being accustomed to the idea that the First Amendment might be repealed–not flag burning and nude dancing, but the innermost core of the amendment, supporting and opposing candidates in elections–and if the Democrats ever have the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.

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.

We already had laws that said how much you can give to whom during an individual election cycle.

Citizens united removed those laws for PACs.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

It is now.

Thanks to the low-information RWs and the anti-America traitors they elect, we will never again have an honest election.

 

[2aguy]

Right there on the form it asks you if you want to contribute money to the matching funds program.

And right now you don't have to contribute...in the future there will be no choice...if the dems have their way...the government should not be paying for peoples campaigns...that is just nuts...

 

[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.

We already had laws that said how much you can give to whom during an individual election cycle.

Citizens united removed those laws for PACs.

Pay attention, the Amendment places NO restrictions on Congress, provides no oversight and no limits on who what and why they may decide to restrict ANYONE's rights. Get it through your thick head, if this amendment passed then Congress could decide ANYTHING they wanted. No limits no restrictions. They could decide for example that a certain political party could not accept donations at all if they so chose.

 

[HenryBHough]

Pay attention, the Amendment places NO restrictions on Congress, provides no oversight and no limits on who what and why they may decide to restrict ANYONE's rights. Get it through your thick head, if this amendment passed then Congress could decide ANYTHING they wanted. No limits no restrictions. They could decide for example that a certain political party could not accept donations at all if they so chose.

And you can be sure they would so choose. Either party.

 

[francoHFW]

OP is total bs lol...Teddy Roosevelt said ALL corporate money should be kept out of politics. Lobbyist are now even worse. It's getting too close to fascism .

 

[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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The 1A is designed so people can speak freely. This doesn't stop people speaking freely, it stops them advertising people to death.

Nowadays people throw money at elections, and not actual policies.

Personally I think real freedom of speech would be better served with Proportional Representation, but seeing as the money doesn't like this type of govt, it might make it harder for them to buy politicians and politics in general, so most people are blissfully aware that their lives would be much better with it.

 

[konradv]

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

You're the one that's "shit for brains". This is about identifying who donated. Without that knowledge no one knows whether what you say is true or just pulled it out of your ass. If Obama did get foreign money, why did the Republicans vote against knowing who they are? You need to think before you post and maybe you won't look so foolish in the future.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The First Amendment gives everyone the right of free speech, even foreigners. I realize that liberal brown shirts like you don't like that, but it's right there in the Bill of Rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No one is talking about donations to political candidates. Those are already regulated and limited. Harry Reid's bill is attempting to limit the freedom of people to publish their opinions on any subject.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No one is talking about donations to political candidates. Those are already regulated and limited. Harry Reid's bill is attempting to limit the freedom of people to publish their opinions on any subject.

It's time for reform and it will hurt, but not our free speech, unless you believe that money = free speech...

Money spent on publishing or broadcasting does equal speech. Only a moron or a sleazy fascist Democrat would deny it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

We already had laws that said how much you can give to whom during an individual election cycle.

Citizens united removed those laws for PACs.

Wrong, nitwit, limits on donations to political campaigns are still in place. What was repealed is limits on the ability of people to publish or broadcast their opinions - speech, in other words.

 

[bripat9643]

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

You're the one that's "shit for brains". This is about identifying who donated. Without that knowledge no one knows whether what you say is true or just pulled it out of your ass. If Obama did get foreign money, why did the Republicans vote against knowing who they are? You need to think before you post and maybe you won't look so foolish in the future.

The Republicans didn't vote against political campaigns having to reveal the identity of their donors. That provision wasn't in Harry Reid's bill.

 

[Geaux4it]

I am Americans for Prosperity. But Obama knows that since his jackboots at the IRS suppressed the vote in 2012

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Indeed. They also keep the poor where they want them, on the government dime,

-Geaux