I recently read a book that brought this subject up. I won't name the book just yet, but this particular part really disturbed me.
Question. Would it bother anyone if members in Congress not only introduced, but passed a bill that would amend The Constitution (Bill of Rights) to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech?
Specifically, Congress would have the authority to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” Would you support such a bill? Why or why not?
Edit: way to completely miss the details of the post. I wouldn't complain too much about limits on campaign donations from individuals or companies (i.e., Monsanto is allowed to spend up to $1M per year funding campaigns or candidates, as would any other corporation or individual be), but not an overall cap per candidate.
Quote:I recently read a book that brought this subject up. I won't name the book just yet, but this particular part really disturbed me.
Question. Would it bother anyone if members in Congress not only introduced, but passed a bill that would amend The Constitution (Bill of Rights) to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech?
Specifically, Congress would have the authority to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” Would you support such a bill? Why or why not?
If Congress attempted to do anything of the sort, and there wasn't an immediate uprising, then the country is already lost.
If Congress attempted to pass any sort of law that put limits on speech, particularly political speech and how and where money is raised, there's an ulterior motive involved. That's always the case, and in this instance, the backlash SHOULD be swift and severe. The laws currently on the books to control levels and origins of political money are good enough as is.
The way it stands currently, certain campaigns with family foundations, and other campaigns who dragged their feet on announcing officially in order to raise as much PAC money as possible are already skirting existing laws and gaming the system. That's fine. Neither campaign will wind up winning when the dust settles. The system has a way of working things out.
No on regulating the manner of speech. Yes on regulating the amount of money specifically campaign finance. This has been discussed on here in many threads and always ends up the same.
Quote:No on regulating the manner of speech. Yes on regulating the amount of money specifically campaign finance. This has been discussed on here in many threads and always ends up the same.
There are already plenty of laws no the books regulating campaign finance, and they do nothing but create new loopholes. The Clinton campaign has been peddling influence and taking donations for years in anticipation of her run for the Oval Office. There are going to be a lot of enemies of the state who are going to be disappointed when she loses as their investment wasn't intended to hear their daughter give a speech on how she wishes her grandmother had the same ability to abort a child as she does
Political Speech? No.
Campaign Finance Contribution Limits? Yes. Of course I don't think money is speech. I know most people here disagree with me, but I don't see money as speech.
Money is speech, groups like the NRA rely on small donations then they pool that money together to make a contribution. It's not just 1 person donating, it's thousands of little people making their voice heard where it probably wouldn't be.
Quote:If Congress attempted to do anything of the sort, and there wasn't an immediate uprising, then the country is already lost.
If Congress attempted to pass any sort of law that put limits on speech, particularly political speech and how and where money is raised, there's an ulterior motive involved. That's always the case, and in this instance, the backlash SHOULD be swift and severe. The laws currently on the books to control levels and origins of political money are good enough as is.
The way it stands currently, certain campaigns with family foundations, and other campaigns who dragged their feet on announcing officially in order to raise as much PAC money as possible are already skirting existing laws and gaming the system. That's fine. Neither campaign will wind up winning when the dust settles. The system has a way of working things out.
What if I told you that such a bill was introduced and passed by one half of Congress? Keep in mind, this is legislation that would have amended The Constitution (Bill of Rights).
For those that are giving opinions on just part of it, the whole thing was actually passed more-or-less the way that I worded it in one part of congress. It's pretty much an "all or nothing" kind of deal.
Quote:For those that are giving opinions on just part of it, the whole thing was actually passed more-or-less the way that I worded it in one part of congress. It's pretty much an "all or nothing" kind of deal.
I am sure there is more to it then the two sentences you posted in brief on it though right?
Quote:There are already plenty of laws no the books regulating campaign finance, and they do nothing but create new loopholes. The Clinton campaign has been peddling influence and taking donations for years in anticipation of her run for the Oval Office. There are going to be a lot of enemies of the state who are going to be disappointed when she loses as their investment wasn't intended to hear their daughter give a speech on how she wishes her grandmother had the same ability to abort a child as she does
You don't need to lecture me on Clinton, I have expressed my distaste for her for a long time though I am interested in your "enemy of the state" comment. I bet it's a doozy.
Money is not speech. Money is property.
Also, it seems to me that almost everything that the true conservatives on this message board have a real problem with is due to hire much money there is in our politics.
You take out the cash incentive to all our candidates, you get policy that more aligns with the constituents not the powerful that contribute to campaigns.
Quote:You don't need to lecture me on Clinton, I have expressed my distaste for her for a long time though I am interested in your "enemy of the state" comment. I bet it's a doozy.
You only need a list of donors to the Clinton Foundation to get a feel for it.
Quote:You don't need to lecture me on Clinton, I have expressed my distaste for her for a long time though I am interested in your "enemy of the state" comment. I bet it's a doozy.
Look at the foundation donor's list and throw a dart. You're bound to hit one.
I feel so very well informed now on what some people consider an enemy of the state. Based on previous posting and lack of insight it's probably safe to assume "enemy of the state" is the new term for "people I disagree with".
For those that are limiting the thought to "speech" is freedom of expression the same thing? In other words, if I wanted to put a campaign sign in the front yard of my home, do I have that freedom? What if I decided to host my own website discussing politics and perhaps raising money for a certain candidate, am I free to do so?
Quote:For those that are limiting the thought to "speech" is freedom of expression the same thing? In other words, if I wanted to put a campaign sign in the front yard of my home, do I have that freedom? What if I decided to host my own website discussing politics and perhaps raising money for a certain candidate, am I free to do so?
Yes to all with one exception: there should be a limit as to how much any one entity can raise per campaign/candidate. This prevents Monsanto, United Healthcare or the NRA, for example, from effectively buying a candidate (and the election) by throwing millions and millions of dollars their way.
Quote:I feel so very well informed now on what some people consider an enemy of the state. Based on previous posting and lack of insight it's probably safe to assume "enemy of the state" is the new term for "people I disagree with".
Right, because taking money from a Russian entity that was government owned and which subsequently secured a deal that the State Department endorsed under a certain Secretary of State who prefers pant suits giving the Russian government, no ally of the United States under the current administration, control over almost a quarter of the Uranium production in the United States. You're right. Enemy of state clearly means people I disagree with. You really got me there.
Shall I go on about the Saudi money that came from the same sources that helped to fund 9/11, or is that just more people I disagree with? Or all the Chinese money?
There's a pretty long list of donors who I couldn't care less about politically, or what they think because they're intent on bringing down this country. You see that as a disagreement on opinion. Spin it any way you want.
There are plenty of donors who are unseemly because they were doing business with the State Department when they were pumping hundreds of thousands or even millions into a family foundation that has overhead that runs about 75-90% (tough to pinpoint that figure because they're still cooking the books). The Clinton's got rich off a charitable foundation that barely makes a dent in the charities they supposedly support despite raising hundreds of millions of dollars from people we disagree with, including some enemies of state (apparently not on your list, but then again, if you're an Obama supporter, is there really an enemy other than conservatives?).
Quote:Yes to all with one exception: there should be a limit as to how much any one entity can raise per campaign/candidate. This prevents Monsanto, United Healthcare or the NRA, for example, from effectively buying a candidate (and the election) by throwing millions and millions of dollars their way.
What about The Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood or the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence?
The bill as passed gave congress sweeping powers to regulate freedom of expression.
Here's something to think about. The bill "exempted" freedom of the press. So many misguided individuals happen to get their "news" from programs like Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show. These shows are not "the press" so it gives congress the power to "regulate" those particular shows and keep them from broadcasting any content that is politically related.
Quote:What about The Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood or the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence?
The bill as passed gave congress sweeping powers to regulate freedom of expression.
Here's something to think about. The bill "exempted" freedom of the press. So many misguided individuals happen to get their "news" from programs like Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show. These shows are not "the press" so it gives congress the power to "regulate" those particular shows and keep them from broadcasting any content that is politically related.
Not to mention SEIU, federal employee unions, the teacher's unions.
Democrats love to complain about the Koch brothers and all the money they pump into elections, but they never bother to recognize the union cash that flows even more freely, or the many shell companies and PACs funded by guys like George Soros. Those are okay I guess. But, those Koch brothers!?!?! Mention their names and watch leftists froth at the bit.
I love how some here immediately blast out the Fox News card if someone disagrees with the position as framed by the mainstream media. You talk about people getting their news from places like Comedy Central or SNL, many here fall into that category, and if you point out to them that it's satire and not actual news, you're labeled. I have no problem with satire, but I don't rely on that to formulate my world view. I also don't watch enough Fox News for them to have an influence either. I prefer to read my news and to go to sites where I won't get so much varnish from the US mainstream media.