If money equals speech, doesn't it bother you some people have more...

[g5000]

Your belief that the Founders would support liberals schemes to bring on Utopia is hilarious.

We used to refer to that scheme as "immanentizing the eschaton".

 

[bripat9643]

So it makes no never mind to you that the first amendment makes no mention of currency?

When you see an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, is that speech or is that money? Because that is what Citizens United was about. It was disingenuous liberals who came up with the bullshit "money is speech" meme.

One issue is redefining the first amendment. That is what Citizens United did.

No, that's what McCain-Feingold did.

The second issue is how ridiculous it is for billionaires to have a monopoly on free speech. Campaign finance laws prevented that. We can quivel about what is constitutional all day long, the fact is that ruling is abhorrent.

So it's constitutional, but it's abhorrent? If you want to change the Constitution, then get your Congressman to submit a bill to do it. If you think the court is simply supposed to ignore the clear text of the Constitution, then you are a traitor.

 

[OKTexas]

So it makes no never mind to you that the first amendment makes no mention of currency?

When you see an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, is that speech or is that money? Because that is what Citizens United was about. It was disingenuous liberals who came up with the bullshit "money is speech" meme.

One issue is redefining the first amendment. That is what Citizens United did.

The second issue is how ridiculous it is for billionaires to have a monopoly on free speech. Campaign finance laws prevented that. We can quivel about what is constitutional all day long, the fact is that ruling is abhorrent.

Wrong answer there wilted willie, the decision upheld the first amendment, it did not redefine it. The decision can be used by all sides in an issue so why are you bitching, your dear leader is raising money like crazy. You want to talk about abhorrent, using my tax money to fly around the country to raise money for commies, that should be stopped. If a group wants a president, any president, to raise money for them they should pay 100% of the cost to bring him in.

 

[dblack]

...freedom of speech than you?

Are the poor second class citizens? I thought all men were created equal? Trust me, today's republicans, if the founding fathers were alive today, they would want absolutely nothing to do with you.

You're confusing freedom with power.

 

[g5000]

When the signal-to-noise ratio in political discourse is such that the noise of retards is nearly drowning out the sane, you can be pretty sure the First Amendment is alive and healthy.

 

[Avorysuds]

If we all have property rights, does it bother you that some people have more property than others?

Sure, if you are a communist.


Money provides access to the microphone. The more money you have, the more time at the mic you get.

If you feel really bad about that, send your paltry pennies to Greenpeace or the NRA or the ACLU or the Heritage Foundation where your voice will be amplified a million times.

God bless America!

So it makes no never mind to you that the first amendment makes no mention of currency?

You need to re-read the first amendment because I doubt it lays a limit of freedom of speech nor does it demand that everyone take part in it equally.

Your position is the same as claiming Obama is bad, because when he talks more people listen due to the incredible amount of money spent to get his messages of division out to the public. TV, Radio, news, Government money.... Why do we all not have access to that level of "free speech?" Because it's not about how much you use it, it's that you can't be stopped from using it.

 

[Avorysuds]

You want real campaign finance reform? It's actually quite simple.

I was going to say it is easy. It isn't.

But it is simple.

Stop giving our federal government so much power. Dilute it. Take it back.

Money follows power. Take away power, and the money stops chasing it. For example, take away a Congressman's ability to put tax breaks for his friends in the tax code, and you take away the reason for his friends to give him campaign cash for doing so.

See how simple that is?

When you centralize power, you make it so much easier to capture and control.

The dipshits on the left wing keep handing over more and more of our personal sovereignty to the federal government, and then they cry like bitches when money buys the levers of that power they surrendered.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

It's pretty much that simple folks.

 

[Papageorgio]

So it makes no never mind to you that the first amendment makes no mention of currency?

When you see an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, is that speech or is that money? Because that is what Citizens United was about. It was disingenuous liberals who came up with the bullshit "money is speech" meme.

One issue is redefining the first amendment. That is what Citizens United did.

The second issue is how ridiculous it is for billionaires to have a monopoly on free speech. Campaign finance laws prevented that. We can quivel about what is constitutional all day long, the fact is that ruling is abhorrent.

And people get paid to speak, how much did Hilary get, Obama goes out on fundraisers all the time and people pay to hear him speak. The billionaires speaking, the rest is not their fault. I blame Congress for the rulings.

As far as campaign laws, it was McCain-Feingold that opened that can of worms that led to the Supreme Court decision. It was a very bad idea when it passed and I forecasted years ago that ths would lead to some major issues. So don't blame the Supreme Court, blame your policitians that forced this on us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...freedom of speech than you?

Are the poor second class citizens? I thought all men were created equal? Trust me, today's republicans, if the founding fathers were alive today, they would want absolutely nothing to do with you.

It used to, then I grew up and realized I can form a corporation to raise money and speak what I want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we all have property rights, does it bother you that some people have more property than others?

Sure, if you are a communist.


Money provides access to the microphone. The more money you have, the more time at the mic you get.

If you feel really bad about that, send your paltry pennies to Greenpeace or the NRA or the ACLU or the Heritage Foundation where your voice will be amplified a million times.

God bless America!

So it makes no never mind to you that the first amendment makes no mention of currency?

The 1st doesn't mention TV either, should we ban TV?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you see an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, is that speech or is that money? Because that is what Citizens United was about. It was disingenuous liberals who came up with the bullshit "money is speech" meme.

One issue is redefining the first amendment. That is what Citizens United did.

Nope. It unleashed the First Amendment from the unconstitutional restraints placed on it by McCain-Feingold.

When you see an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, is that speech or is that money?

The second issue is how ridiculous it is for billionaires to have a monopoly on free speech. Campaign finance laws prevented that. We can quivel about what is constitutional all day long, the fact is that ruling is abhorrent.

Who says billionaires have a monopoly on free speech? Who is filling your silly head with that idea? Is a billionaire making you write these posts of yours?

Campaign finance reforms have achieved DICK. All of the "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents.

I have to disagree, all of the reforms were designed to increase the reelection rates of incumbents, and they all pretty much succeeded in that.

 

[whitehall]

Is the radical left in a freaking coma? Poor people and the middle class can pool their money to the point where they equal the legal corporate donations to political candidates. Everybody can be a player in the political system in the greatest Country in the world if they are smart enough not to listen to stupid leftie radicals.

 

[boedicca]

Someone else exercising his right to free speech, including making campaign donations, does absolutely nothing to limit the rights of others to Speak and make their own contributions.

 

[g5000]

Campaign finance reforms have achieved DICK. All of the "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents.

I have to disagree, all of the reforms were designed to increase the reelection rates of incumbents, and they all pretty much succeeded in that.

Since re-election rates have been unchanged for nearly half a century, then by definition the reforms have not helped or hurt incumbents.

 

[Kosh]

If we all have property rights, does it bother you that some people have more property than others?

Sure, if you are a communist.


Money provides access to the microphone. The more money you have, the more time at the mic you get.

If you feel really bad about that, send your paltry pennies to Greenpeace or the NRA or the ACLU or the Heritage Foundation where your voice will be amplified a million times.

God bless America!

So it makes no never mind to you that the first amendment makes no mention of currency?

More proof that the far left does not understand the constitution.

 

[dblack]

Campaign finance reforms have achieved DICK. All of the "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents.

I have to disagree, all of the reforms were designed to increase the reelection rates of incumbents, and they all pretty much succeeded in that.

Since re-election rates have been unchanged for nearly half a century, then by definition the reforms have not helped or hurt incumbents.

We need more!!!!

 

[g5000]

I have to disagree, all of the reforms were designed to increase the reelection rates of incumbents, and they all pretty much succeeded in that.

Since re-election rates have been unchanged for nearly half a century, then by definition the reforms have not helped or hurt incumbents.

We need more!!!!

Clearly.

 

[kwc57]

What happened to Billy? Too much schooling for one day?

 

[OKTexas]

I have to disagree, all of the reforms were designed to increase the reelection rates of incumbents, and they all pretty much succeeded in that.

Since re-election rates have been unchanged for nearly half a century, then by definition the reforms have not helped or hurt incumbents.

We need more!!!!

Typical fucking commie, if it doesn't work let's do more of it. Will you ever learn?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Campaign finance reforms have achieved DICK. All of the "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents.

, and that the rates for reelection
I have to disagree, all of the reforms were designed to increase the reelection rates of incumbents, and they all pretty much succeeded in that.

Since re-election rates have been unchanged for nearly half a century, then by definition the reforms have not helped or hurt incumbents.

Considering the fact that the first campaign finance bill to pass on a national level was in 1972, and the fact that reelection rates never hit 90% before then, and have only climbed that high in the last 20 years, maybe you should reconsider your opinion.

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/95-361_19950308.pdf