This Lying RNC Idiot POS Is Responsible For Citizen's United... And He's Not Sorry

[Soggy in NOLA]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

Who ultimately hires and fires these people? Oh yeah, the American voter.

 

[OKTexas]

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

Electioneering is not allowed at polling stations in Missouri. Nor are political signs.

It is in TX, they have to stay 100' from the polling location and they can't approach voters.

 

[HUGGY]

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

That is under the domain of state election laws, not the First Amendment.

According to some here any regulatory provisions are a violation of free speech. The FEC was designed by congress to attempt to insure fair elections. Their rules apply to all parties and candidates. The commission has 3 dems and 3 republicans on it.

 

[HUGGY]

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

Electioneering is not allowed at polling stations in Missouri. Nor are political signs.

How DARE they violate the First Amendment!!!!

 

[HUGGY]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

Who ultimately hires and fires these people? Oh yeah, the American voter.

Unfortunately that isn't true. They are forced to limit their time begging money from people and businesses that can cough up at least $1000 in contributions. They rarely talk to average people. They cannot afford to so the average voter rarely gets to talk to his congressman. The congressman is beholding to wealthy supporters moreso than at any time in the past, even the honest ones.

The senate has an even higher burden with a 3500 dollar a week nut hanging over his head. AND god for bid the congressman or senator does something that pisses off the leadership. They can focus enormous sums to badmouth him or her and make sure they do not get re-elected.

 

[HUGGY]

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

Electioneering is not allowed at polling stations in Missouri. Nor are political signs.

It is in TX, they have to stay 100' from the polling location and they can't approach voters.

Damn them to hell for interfering in free speech in Texas!

 

[bripat9643]

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

That is under the domain of state election laws, not the First Amendment.

According to some here any regulatory provisions are a violation of free speech. The FEC was designed by congress to attempt to insure fair elections. Their rules apply to all parties and candidates. The commission has 3 dems and 3 republicans on it.

The Constitution says the states make the rules for conducting elections. Controlling what goes on in a polling place fits the description. You could make a credible argument that disallowing campaigning is a violation of the First Amendment, but the infringement is too small to get excited about. Telling people they can't make a movie or publish a book, on the other hand, is a serious violation that could affect the outcome of the election.

 

[HUGGY]

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

That is under the domain of state election laws, not the First Amendment.

According to some here any regulatory provisions are a violation of free speech. The FEC was designed by congress to attempt to insure fair elections. Their rules apply to all parties and candidates. The commission has 3 dems and 3 republicans on it.

The Constitution says the states make the rules for conducting elections. Controlling what goes on in a polling place fits the description. You could make a credible argument that disallowing campaigning is a violation of the First Amendment, but the infringement is too small to get excited about. Telling people they can't make a movie or publish a book, on the other hand, is a serious violation that could affect the outcome of the election.

I believe that the movie was already made. The supposed violation was the time proximity to an election. I can't remember if it was a primary or what. Citizen's wanted to flood pay for view for free as well as hit the broadcast venues too close to the election. The rule FEC rule was 30 days. I guess the rule is so a candidate has time to prepare a response to whatever is thrown at them. The movie called "Hillary" was filled with obvious untruths but that is not why the smear campaign was rejected. I cannot verify the content. I read the Supreme court decision. Man that thing went on and on and on.... They referred to the original lawsuit and denial as "Austin".

 

[OKTexas]

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

That is under the domain of state election laws, not the First Amendment.

According to some here any regulatory provisions are a violation of free speech. The FEC was designed by congress to attempt to insure fair elections. Their rules apply to all parties and candidates. The commission has 3 dems and 3 republicans on it.

The Constitution says the states make the rules for conducting elections. Controlling what goes on in a polling place fits the description. You could make a credible argument that disallowing campaigning is a violation of the First Amendment, but the infringement is too small to get excited about. Telling people they can't make a movie or publish a book, on the other hand, is a serious violation that could affect the outcome of the election.

I believe that the movie was already made. The supposed violation was the time proximity to an election. I can't remember if it was a primary or what. Citizen's wanted to flood pay for view for free as well as hit the broadcast venues too close to the election. The rule FEC rule was 30 days. I guess the rule is so a candidate has time to prepare a response to whatever is thrown at them. The movie called "Hillary" was filled with obvious untruths but that is not why the smear campaign was rejected. I cannot verify the content. I read the Supreme court decision. Man that thing went on and on and on.... They referred to the original lawsuit and denial as "Austin".

Wrong again as usual, Austin was a separate case that was originally upheld and then overturned along with the time restrictions in the Citizens case. Austin dealt with a Michigan law that allowed expenditures by unions and not for profit corporations. It was overturned on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds.

 

[eagle7_31]

David N. Bossie , Montgomery County, Maryland

I'm responsible for Citizens United. I'm not sorry.

"Simply put, since the Citizens United decision there is more free speech in America -- and, importantly, no evidence that corporations have been able to buy an election."


"People upset by the repercussions of Citizens United might blame me, or maybe Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. But they should turn their gaze to filmmaker Michael Moore. In June 2004 — a presidential election year — he released “Fahrenheit 9/11.” That documentary — produced and promoted with corporate money — made a tremendous impact in the run-up to election day. TV was filled with ads for the film, which made President George W. Bush look ridiculous in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That inspired me to produce conservative films.


But when I made “Hillary: The Movie” in 2008, the Federal Election Commission argued that, unlike Moore's film, it was a form of “electioneering” and that I couldn't show it during an election season— the very time that free speech matters most. Under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, the government could or actually have thrown me in jail for showing “Hillary: The Movie” or its promotional ads on television."

This mental midget and liar worked closely with Newt Gingrich as an RNC thug for hire.

Aside from ruining American politics and the election process of our House of Representatives and Senate by being the author of Citizen's United, he owns a high school diploma. According to one college he claims to have attended there is no verification.

"And that’s just to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the justices agree, which they rarely do, then we’re talking really big numbers. “About the cheapest you can get away with at D.C. rates is $250,000,” Bopp says, “and then it ranges in the millions after that.”

How much does a big Supreme Court case like gay marriage cost?.

I am pretty certain that this low life couldn't have possibly funded taking his case to the Supreme Court.

Well as it turned out Bossie got lucky and ran into wealthy RNC attorney James Bopp who has been working for years to stop abortions so he took on Bossies case as he has dozens of similar cases aimed at preventing disclosure of campaign financing.

Neither Bossie nor Bopp are apologetic and neither feel they have done any harm to our political process.

I hope you watched CBS 60 minutes tonight and saw how out congressmen and women must spend 30 hours a week from day one begging for donations to get relelected. If not you can use this link:

Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/QUOTE

So what? You and other bottom feeding left wingers with the soros money and trying to choke off opposition to the far left agenda are responsible for this. Bossie did the right thing. If you don't like it move to IRAN.

 

[Markle]

No, but evidently you buy into commiecrat talking points no matter how inaccurate they are.

He gave you specific facts. If you call that "talking points" then God help you. Obviously you watch too much Fox News

No he used talking points, that facts are Citizens United had ZERO effect on political finance laws. The only thing it did was remove the congressional gag order on independent groups political speech, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. You look totally foolish to claim otherwise.

Are you fucking kidding me? The Koch Brothers gave almost a billion to the 2016 GOP campaign. That's all of the funding of the 2012 funding for the GOP in TOTAL. That's what Citizens United brought us. Money trumping the will of the people. I mean thank god they were idiots and gave it to the wrong campaigns but we might not be so lucky next time.

PLEASE show us your reliable, along with the link to your allegation that the KOCH BROTHERS GAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS to the 2016 campaign.

Thus far, I don't believe they have not contributed a dime for 2016.

If you meant 2012, as I said above, please show us your source.

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

You are amusing, I'll give you that!

The article is from JANUARY 2015, NOT 2016 but OVER a year old. To date, you cannot show where they have GIVEN A DIME.

YOUR POST stated that they had spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS on the campaign. The Koch brothers were on TV this week saying they had not decided who they were going to support.

But...as I said, cute try and you are amusing.

 

[Markle]

It appears you do not understand the intent of the court's ruling in Citizen's United v The Federal Election Committee.

The court attempted to separate the obvious huge donations a super pac could aim at an election. They attempted to make it clear that these super pacs could not be directly associated with any candidate directly. In effect it does not work that way. These super pacs are run by people directly linked to individual candidates. In short the super pacs ignore the intent of the ruling and do an end run around the ruling by packing the managers of the super pacs with personnel closely associated with individual candidates.

You give the voting public too much credit. Obviously you do not understand the dynamics of advertising either.

Advertising works. The guy with the biggest megaphone gets his message heard and the guy armed only with the truth on a small budget gets shouted over. The aisles of any big grocery store will confirm that what you see on television is what is stocked on the shelves and what sells regardless of the content of the products.

You can say that the average American is stupid for allowing his or her buying habits to be manipulated like they are. Their voting habits are not that different from what they purchase to eat.

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

Is this a violation of your idea of free speech?

 

[HUGGY]

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

Is this a violation of your idea of free speech?

Yes...errrr...no. I'm sure it violates several poll harassment laws but I don't see the free speech component.

 

[Markle]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

The typical American could not even NAME their Congressman for their district, much less either of their Senators. Most cannot identify the photo of the Vice President. That is why so many are so gullible that some actually believe if the vote for someone, FREEBIES will rain down on them.

 

[Markle]

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

Is this a violation of your idea of free speech?

Yes...errrr...no. I'm sure it violates several poll harassment laws but I don't see the free speech component.

Are they not expressing their freedom of speech? Their freedom of expression?

The electioneering of which you speak was to halt all advertising 30 days prior to an election.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

Is this a violation of your idea of free speech?

Voter intimidation is not free speech, it's a violation of law, one that the Bush administration had won a default judgment against and the maobama admin promptly threw it out.

 

[HUGGY]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

The typical American could not even NAME their Congressman for their district, much less either of their Senators. Most cannot identify the photo of the Vice President. That is why so many are so gullible that some actually believe if the vote for someone, FREEBIES will rain down on them.

It's not much different than those who think this congressman or that senator will be the one that spearheads an anti abortion bill. There is a lot of willfully ignorant wishful thinking in both the Dems and the GOP voters.

 

[HUGGY]

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

Is this a violation of your idea of free speech?

Yes...errrr...no. I'm sure it violates several poll harassment laws but I don't see the free speech component.

Are they not expressing their freedom of speech? Their freedom of expression?

The electioneering of which you speak was to halt all advertising 30 days prior to an election.

I still don't see it as any kind of free speech issue. It is certainly intimidation which we should not tolerate at polling locations.

 

[Billy000]

He gave you specific facts. If you call that "talking points" then God help you. Obviously you watch too much Fox News

No he used talking points, that facts are Citizens United had ZERO effect on political finance laws. The only thing it did was remove the congressional gag order on independent groups political speech, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. You look totally foolish to claim otherwise.

Are you fucking kidding me? The Koch Brothers gave almost a billion to the 2016 GOP campaign. That's all of the funding of the 2012 funding for the GOP in TOTAL. That's what Citizens United brought us. Money trumping the will of the people. I mean thank god they were idiots and gave it to the wrong campaigns but we might not be so lucky next time.

PLEASE show us your reliable, along with the link to your allegation that the KOCH BROTHERS GAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS to the 2016 campaign.

Thus far, I don't believe they have not contributed a dime for 2016.

If you meant 2012, as I said above, please show us your source.

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

You are amusing, I'll give you that!

The article is from JANUARY 2015, NOT 2016 but OVER a year old. To date, you cannot show where they have GIVEN A DIME.

YOUR POST stated that they had spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS on the campaign. The Koch brothers were on TV this week saying they had not decided who they were going to support.

But...as I said, cute try and you are amusing.

lol this was clearly meant for the 2016 cycle. You do know the campaigns started in 2015 right? It would take months for them to launch their campaigns. They would need funding by early 2015. Scott Walker is who they were supporting. I mean what possible reason would there be to donate all of that money lol. The announcement they made today was obviously talking about the candidates still left in the race. No my friend, it is you who is adorable.

 

[OKTexas]

No he used talking points, that facts are Citizens United had ZERO effect on political finance laws. The only thing it did was remove the congressional gag order on independent groups political speech, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. You look totally foolish to claim otherwise.

Are you fucking kidding me? The Koch Brothers gave almost a billion to the 2016 GOP campaign. That's all of the funding of the 2012 funding for the GOP in TOTAL. That's what Citizens United brought us. Money trumping the will of the people. I mean thank god they were idiots and gave it to the wrong campaigns but we might not be so lucky next time.

PLEASE show us your reliable, along with the link to your allegation that the KOCH BROTHERS GAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS to the 2016 campaign.

Thus far, I don't believe they have not contributed a dime for 2016.

If you meant 2012, as I said above, please show us your source.

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

You are amusing, I'll give you that!

The article is from JANUARY 2015, NOT 2016 but OVER a year old. To date, you cannot show where they have GIVEN A DIME.

YOUR POST stated that they had spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS on the campaign. The Koch brothers were on TV this week saying they had not decided who they were going to support.

But...as I said, cute try and you are amusing.

lol this was clearly meant for the 2016 cycle. You do know the campaigns started in 2015 right? It would take months for them to launch their campaigns. They would need funding by early 2015. Scott Walker is who they were supporting. I mean what possible reason would there be to donate all of that money lol. The announcement they made today was obviously talking about the candidates still left in the race. No my friend, it is you who is adorable.

And I bet the $5,400 those two brothers could donate to Walker went a looooooooooooooog way.