Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

[Kondor3]

...Can we include the foreign governments that paid Hillary off???

Absolutely.

 

[Kondor3]

...The company's stock holders are humans and the company is acting in their interest. Just like Unions.

So we undertake massive campaign reforms that preclude either corporations, nonprofits, labor unions, foreign governments, etc., from contributing, and we (metaphorically) crucify any candidate who violates related law.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Obama has been whining about this for years.
Obama cheats.....and he doesn't think the opposition has the right to counter it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yeah, because we all know the Dims will be bending over backwards to fix it afterwards!

Of course, no Dim is going to vote yes for a law that reduces the power of unions. It appears that Democrats are the main obstacle to their scheme to repeal the First Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, anything is not better than nothing.

 

[Misty]

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

Typical. On one they thread they are screaming about constitutional civil rights while their leader seeks to squelch a fundamental right.

 

[Misty]

"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 for airing commercials endorsing a candidate? No editorials etc,,, books....... you get my drift

Scary stuff

-Geaux

Not really. It's American history actually, when we used to have much better elections, and much better politics.

"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.

Ya sure like Obama didn't take money from big corporations.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Typical. On one they thread they are screaming about constitutional civil rights while their leader seeks to squelch a fundamental right.

The liberal conception of rights is just a battering ram they use expand the power of the federal government over all of us.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama proposes things just to piss off real Americans. He knows who they are and he comes after us. You know, he is indeed the POTUS so, you know, he can do what he wants..... right?

Can't believe our historical record will reflect such poor judgement by the people. For there is no other direction to look for who to blame for this mess than to look inward. It's not Obama.... its us. It's the before mentioned misinformed and the lack and will of the Republican Party to change, that leaves on this path of disaster.

Obama is a bad dream come true

-Geaux

so who are those REAL Americans?....

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama proposes things just to piss off real Americans. He knows who they are and he comes after us. You know, he is indeed the POTUS so, you know, he can do what he wants..... right?

Can't believe our historical record will reflect such poor judgement by the people. For there is no other direction to look for who to blame for this mess than to look inward. It's not Obama.... its us. It's the before mentioned misinformed and the lack and will of the Republican Party to change, that leaves on this path of disaster.

Obama is a bad dream come true

-Geaux

so who are those REAL Americans?....

Its easier to point out who they're not

-Geaux

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

Obama is a liar and I hate liars.

then you must hate every politician out there.....

 

[RodISHI]

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

Citizens united was a farce upon the people. Congress needs to be the fixer in this case by passing legislation reflecting such and people need to start realizing that the monsters they build will eventually come to bite them. Corporations, bodies gathered together run by a few, whether its Unions, Churches or organized groups in generally are not person nor should they have ever been granted personhood by the courts. These giants are powers and principalities.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

is it mind control or a superior product over other like products?....if i like coke over pepsi is that coke controlling my mind or me thinking coke is a better tasting soda?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

"Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights"

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

If the Constitution is amended to render void Citizens United, then free speech rights haven't been 'limited,' because laws regulating political campaign contributions would in fact be Constitutional.

The irony of this, of course, is that conservatives whine about the Constitution being 'changed' by court rulings – which of course is ignorant idiocy – and insist that if the Constitution is to be changed it should be done by amendment.

Now that an amendment is being proposed, conservatives are still whining and lying.

So if they passed an Amendment that said the government can determine what can be said and what can't be said, would you claim that wasn't a limitation of free speech since it was now constitutional?

You really are a special kind of moron, Clayton.

clayton does not participate in the discussions,he cant,too much of a pussy....he just makes statements and runs.....

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Citizens united was a farce upon the people. Congress needs to be the fixer in this case by passing legislation reflecting such and people need to start realizing that the monsters they build will eventually come to bite them. Corporations, bodies gathered together run by a few, whether its Unions, Churches or organized groups in generally are not person nor should they have ever been granted personhood by the courts. These giants are powers and principalities.

You dont get this, do you?
No federal action could overturn Citizens, which speaks to Constitutional rights.
Corporations have been recognized as persons since the early 1900s.
This is about freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

90% of them get re-elected over and over anyway.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama proposes things just to piss off real Americans. He knows who they are and he comes after us. You know, he is indeed the POTUS so, you know, he can do what he wants..... right?

Can't believe our historical record will reflect such poor judgement by the people. For there is no other direction to look for who to blame for this mess than to look inward. It's not Obama.... its us. It's the before mentioned misinformed and the lack and will of the Republican Party to change, that leaves on this path of disaster.

Obama is a bad dream come true

-Geaux

so who are those REAL Americans?....

Its easier to point out who they're not

-Geaux

ok...start pointing...

 

[nat4900]

You dont get it.
We want MORE money in politics

The major networks and all of media outlets agree with you 100%

 

[nat4900]

90% of them get re-elected over and over anyway

Then FIGHT for term limits.

 

[nat4900]

1. Irrelevant to the discussion

Could have just stated..."I have no idea....after all I'm a right winger..." LOL