Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

[PredFan]

So Obama recommended something stupid that will never happen, sounds like a typical day for him.

Someday you'll realize that you should have hated Obama less and loved the US just a bit more.

Loving the US results in hating Obama. Fact.

 

[nat4900]

Ponder this.......

IF both Citizen United were overturned AND unions were also banned from large political contributions.........which of the 2 major parties would object the most?

 

[nat4900]

Loving the US results in hating Obama. Fact.

Your "fact" usually originates from your arse.

 

[Slyhunter]

Ponder this.......

IF both Citizen United were overturned AND unions were also banned from large political contributions.........which of the 2 major parties would object the most?

Democrats are hypocrites.

 

[nat4900]

Ponder this.......

IF both Citizen United were overturned AND unions were also banned from large political contributions.........which of the 2 major parties would object the most?

Democrats are hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

"Brilliant" response to the question, Slym...Congrats.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have to wonder what Democrats are so scared of that they are constantly demonizing Citizens and trying to overturn it. After all, it gives them the same ability to form corporations and campaign on issues as conservatives. Perhaps it is that Democrats already have all the corporations campaigning for them so anything else must be going to the opposition.

I don't agree with Citizens either.

But an amendment isn't the answer.

Seems like voters educating themselves (and not listening to the Hacks who run the communications networks) would weaken the power of money.

But then again that's not going to happen, is it? Look at how many people are taken in by advertising, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coca-Cola being some of the bigger ones. They make a fortune because they mind control so many people.

This is a typical trope not just of the Left but a lot of losertarians believe it as well. Advertising brainwashes people. No, it doesnt. Peole buy Coke because it tastes good.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A company isn't a human being and money isn't speech.

A company is comprised of human beings exercising their free speech rights corporately. Money fuels free speech.

If they're humans then they should have to follow the same laws as us humans.

What laws? Why should the federal government be permitted to dictate how people both individually and collectively spend their money, particularly when the money being spent may be in opposition to the currently sitting government doing the dictating?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

You mean he wants an amendment that brings democracy to the US?

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

 

[PredFan]

Loving the US results in hating Obama. Fact.

Your "fact" usually originates from your arse.

And your opinion originates from yours.

 

[PredFan]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

You mean he wants an amendment that brings democracy to the US?

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

I have no argument with that, but that isn't what Obama wants to do.

 

[depotoo]

I do. With the media, what, 70% left wing? They can pick up where money isn't.

You mean he wants an amendment that brings democracy to the US?

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

I have no argument with that, but that isn't what Obama wants to do.

 

[nat4900]

Here's a little test: I'll give you the definition.....you provide the term.....

1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

 

[PredFan]

Here's a little test: I'll give you the definition.....you provide the term.....

1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

Here are the answers:

1. Irrelevant to the discussion.
2. Irrelevant to the discussion.
3. Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Funny that RWs were lining up in the Kim Davis threads, all but calling for an end to the First Amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....

Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.

You really believe money and wealth shaping politics is something new?

Just like now, its has always been about the rich taking from the poor. Its just that now, the GOP is openly stealing elections to benefit the few at the top.

Idiot, libtards are no different.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You mean he wants an amendment that brings democracy to the US?

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

I have no argument with that, but that isn't what Obama wants to do.

Does it matter? If you can make some headway into reducing the amount of money being put in, then the Republicans can then fight to prevent money from the unions and hey presto you might get some democracy.

By blocking something that goes partly the way, nothing will ever change.

 

[bripat9643]

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

I have no argument with that, but that isn't what Obama wants to do.

Does it matter? If you can make some headway into reducing the amount of money being put in, then the Republicans can then fight to prevent money from the unions and hey presto you might get some democracy.

By blocking something that goes partly the way, nothing will ever change.

That doesn't negate the vast powers the media has, which is overwhelmingly liberal, and also academia.

 

[PredFan]

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

I have no argument with that, but that isn't what Obama wants to do.

Does it matter? If you can make some headway into reducing the amount of money being put in, then the Republicans can then fight to prevent money from the unions and hey presto you might get some democracy.

By blocking something that goes partly the way, nothing will ever change.

You aren't really that naive are you? You don't do it part way and especially in a way that is blatantly partial to one side and just say we'll fix it later.

 

[Harry Dresden]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

So, you're in favor (not surprised) preventing a company from airing commercials endorsing a candidate? No editorials etc,,, books....... you get my drift

Scary stuff

-Geaux

im all in favor of getting rid of political commercials on TV,they are nothing but attack ads and as many as they show during the day they are pretty dam annoying....

 

[frigidweirdo]

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

I have no argument with that, but that isn't what Obama wants to do.

Does it matter? If you can make some headway into reducing the amount of money being put in, then the Republicans can then fight to prevent money from the unions and hey presto you might get some democracy.

By blocking something that goes partly the way, nothing will ever change.

You aren't really that naive are you? You don't do it part way and especially in a way that is blatantly partial to one side and just say we'll fix it later.

As I said before. Anything is better than nothing. The situation right now is so ridiculous. You haven't shown what Obama wants this for, just made so passing comment. This is neither here nor there as other would come along anyway, this isn't about Obama any more.

Any advantage you think the dems will get out of it would probably be nullified anyway.

You haven't shown that restricting money from big business wouldn't restrict money from the Unions either.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.

If you limited money to politicians in the first place, the amount that could be spent, then it wouldn't matter how much was or wasn't given by unions anyway.

Regardless I don't see how it benefits anyone to have politicians paid for by unions or big money. If big money couldn't give too much money then unions wouldn't be able to either.

I have no argument with that, but that isn't what Obama wants to do.

Does it matter? If you can make some headway into reducing the amount of money being put in, then the Republicans can then fight to prevent money from the unions and hey presto you might get some democracy.

By blocking something that goes partly the way, nothing will ever change.

You dont get it.
We want MORE money in politics. More money will negate the advantage that incumbents have. If you limit money you allow the incumbents, who get free media coverage, to get elected over and over.
In any case, limiting money is limiting political speech, which is counter to the 1A. Which is why Dems want to do it.