FEC: Liberals Seek To Amend the 1st Amendment to Eliminate Successful Conservative Media

[BULLDOG]

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

Seriously, your hildabitch plans to spend 2 billion dollars to get a job that pays 400K and you're crying about big money. I guess you don't know, Citizens United dealt with much more than money. It also dealt with selected people being denied political speech during specified times before elections. Also as I said, you don't need 2/3rds to request a convention on the same subject. Did you miss this part of Article V, "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"? Note it's Amendments, plural, it doesn't say an Amendment, singular. Now run along child your question has been answered.

It didn't deal with political speech as normally considered. It defined money as political speech. Again. You have failed to show any identifiable effort to modify the 1st amendment. Typical unfounded right wing claim.

Really, ads aren't political speech, maybe you shouldn't depend on you not so good memory, it dealt primarily with speech. The BRCA prohibited any braodcast opposition ads, that named a candidate, for 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. CU changed nothing in regards to contributions. My bold.

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law.

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”

Instead of going off on these off subject tangents, do you have anything concerning my original question, which was what efforts can you show for anybody trying to change or do away with the 1st amendment?

 

[BULLDOG]

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

How can anyone who believes in freedom want to take money out of politics?

You like having a price tag on our elections?

 

[rdean]

Liberals have decided since they can't COMPETE with the Conservative message, they will act to ELIMINATE it!

Socialists...Communists...dictators that abhor 'freedom' and 'democracy' seek to control people in every aspect. Socialists believe that people must be stripped of everything they are dependent on other than the government - religion, the media, etc...

They have proven they could not compete with Conservative media - Fox News dominates the news media and Conservative talk radio has no liberal competition. Oh the Libs TRIED to start up their own talk radio channel...but it fell flat.

Libs have tried to find ways to 'silence' Conservatives. Obama's administration has been caught spying on Americans as well as using the IRS against them to do so. Now the FEC is warning the 'TOLERANT' Libs are planning on silencing all opposing voices.



FEC commissioner warns Dems are gunning for conservative media

"A key Federal Election Commission Republican warned Wednesday that liberals are moving aggressively to "amend the First Amendment" so that conservatives are silenced and businesses are chased "out of the democracy."

FEC commissioner warns Dems are gunning for conservative media


Can you say 'domestic enemy'?!

Because without lies, you don't have successful conservative media.

 

[Defiant1]

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

How can anyone who believes in freedom want to take money out of politics?

You like having a price tag on our elections?

I work in the elections business. I don't see any price tags.

Do you favor limiting candidates getting their messages out?

 

[OKTexas]

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

Seriously, your hildabitch plans to spend 2 billion dollars to get a job that pays 400K and you're crying about big money. I guess you don't know, Citizens United dealt with much more than money. It also dealt with selected people being denied political speech during specified times before elections. Also as I said, you don't need 2/3rds to request a convention on the same subject. Did you miss this part of Article V, "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"? Note it's Amendments, plural, it doesn't say an Amendment, singular. Now run along child your question has been answered.

It didn't deal with political speech as normally considered. It defined money as political speech. Again. You have failed to show any identifiable effort to modify the 1st amendment. Typical unfounded right wing claim.

Really, ads aren't political speech, maybe you shouldn't depend on you not so good memory, it dealt primarily with speech. The BRCA prohibited any braodcast opposition ads, that named a candidate, for 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. CU changed nothing in regards to contributions. My bold.

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law.

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”

Instead of going off on these off subject tangents, do you have anything concerning my original question, which was what efforts can you show for anybody trying to change or do away with the 1st amendment?

I'm sorry, I guess in the regressive mind, the 4 States that have requested a convention to repeal CU don't count. Especially since it would require a change to the very amendment used to make the CU decision in the first place.

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals have decided since they can't COMPETE with the Conservative message, they will act to ELIMINATE it!

Socialists...Communists...dictators that abhor 'freedom' and 'democracy' seek to control people in every aspect. Socialists believe that people must be stripped of everything they are dependent on other than the government - religion, the media, etc...

They have proven they could not compete with Conservative media - Fox News dominates the news media and Conservative talk radio has no liberal competition. Oh the Libs TRIED to start up their own talk radio channel...but it fell flat.

Libs have tried to find ways to 'silence' Conservatives. Obama's administration has been caught spying on Americans as well as using the IRS against them to do so. Now the FEC is warning the 'TOLERANT' Libs are planning on silencing all opposing voices.



FEC commissioner warns Dems are gunning for conservative media

"A key Federal Election Commission Republican warned Wednesday that liberals are moving aggressively to "amend the First Amendment" so that conservatives are silenced and businesses are chased "out of the democracy."

FEC commissioner warns Dems are gunning for conservative media


Can you say 'domestic enemy'?!

And my 'moving agressively to amend the First Amendment' he means doing nothing at all to amend the First Amendment.

Of course 'Conservative Media' is all working for Donald Trump this campaign.....

 

[BULLDOG]

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

Seriously, your hildabitch plans to spend 2 billion dollars to get a job that pays 400K and you're crying about big money. I guess you don't know, Citizens United dealt with much more than money. It also dealt with selected people being denied political speech during specified times before elections. Also as I said, you don't need 2/3rds to request a convention on the same subject. Did you miss this part of Article V, "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"? Note it's Amendments, plural, it doesn't say an Amendment, singular. Now run along child your question has been answered.

It didn't deal with political speech as normally considered. It defined money as political speech. Again. You have failed to show any identifiable effort to modify the 1st amendment. Typical unfounded right wing claim.

Really, ads aren't political speech, maybe you shouldn't depend on you not so good memory, it dealt primarily with speech. The BRCA prohibited any braodcast opposition ads, that named a candidate, for 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. CU changed nothing in regards to contributions. My bold.

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law.

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”

Instead of going off on these off subject tangents, do you have anything concerning my original question, which was what efforts can you show for anybody trying to change or do away with the 1st amendment?

I'm sorry, I guess in the regressive mind, the 4 States that have requested a convention to repeal CU don't count. Especially since it would require a change to the very amendment used to make the CU decision in the first place.

Wow 4 states. What was all that list of hundreds about? deflection?

 

[OKTexas]

Seriously, your hildabitch plans to spend 2 billion dollars to get a job that pays 400K and you're crying about big money. I guess you don't know, Citizens United dealt with much more than money. It also dealt with selected people being denied political speech during specified times before elections. Also as I said, you don't need 2/3rds to request a convention on the same subject. Did you miss this part of Article V, "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"? Note it's Amendments, plural, it doesn't say an Amendment, singular. Now run along child your question has been answered.

It didn't deal with political speech as normally considered. It defined money as political speech. Again. You have failed to show any identifiable effort to modify the 1st amendment. Typical unfounded right wing claim.

Really, ads aren't political speech, maybe you shouldn't depend on you not so good memory, it dealt primarily with speech. The BRCA prohibited any braodcast opposition ads, that named a candidate, for 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. CU changed nothing in regards to contributions. My bold.

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law.

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”

Instead of going off on these off subject tangents, do you have anything concerning my original question, which was what efforts can you show for anybody trying to change or do away with the 1st amendment?

I'm sorry, I guess in the regressive mind, the 4 States that have requested a convention to repeal CU don't count. Especially since it would require a change to the very amendment used to make the CU decision in the first place.

Wow 4 states. What was all that list of hundreds about? deflection?

Nope, it answered your question as to whether or not 2/3rds of the States had requested a convention, didn't it? like I said before, the answer is YES.