Like Coke I believe...

 

 So it's the Coke brothers?

 

I have heard that spelling pronounced several different ways, but Coke wasn't one of the ways.

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

You cannot muzzle free speech unless you repeal the First Amendment.   I believe that, under the Constitution, people are free to spend whatever they want to make whatever political statement they want.

You shouldn't tell that to Congress and the SCOTUS, both have said that isnt so.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So it's the Coke brothers?

 

I have heard that spelling pronounced several different ways, but Coke wasn't one of the ways.

I didn't realize it was pronounced that way either until I saw a commercial for Koch Industries...their company. They pronounced it Coke...

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I can think of a lot of better ways to spend $889 million dollars.


So maybe they should give it to me, and forget about this whole 'election' thing.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

 So it's the Coke brothers?

 

I have heard that spelling pronounced several different ways, but Coke wasn't one of the ways.

 

One of the different ways is Cook.    Former Packers Offensive Lineman Greg Koch,  who played for them in the late 1970's and first half of the 1980's,  pronounced it that way.  

---

You shouldn't tell that to Congress and the SCOTUS, both have said that isnt so.

I might by misunderstanding what you are saying here but I am pretty sure that is exactly what congress and the SCOTUS said. That money is speech and corps are people so anyone and everyone can spend as much as they want. 

 

It's a pile. It's not speech it's controlling of elections. The first amendment was never intended to imply as such, IMO.

---

I might by misunderstanding what you are saying here but I am pretty sure that is exactly what congress and the SCOTUS said. That money is speech and corps are people so anyone and everyone can spend as much as they want. 

 

It's a pile. It's not speech it's controlling of elections. The first amendment was never intended to imply as such, IMO.

 

I may be sorry I asked, but how is it controlling elections?

 

So you're buying whatever ideas they are selling? Or are you too smart for that, but you're concerned for those "others" who might not be as insightful and sophisticated?

 

How much is just enough and how much is too much? And if you want the government to control political speech aren't you advocating an Incumbents Protection Act?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I might by misunderstanding what you are saying here but I am pretty sure that is exactly what congress and the SCOTUS said. That money is speech and corps are people so anyone and everyone can spend as much as they want. 

 

It's a pile. It's not speech it's controlling of elections. The first amendment was never intended to imply as such, IMO.

 

If you own a newspaper you can say whatever you want.   There is no dispute about that.   But why should unlimited free speed be restricted to people who own the media?   Why shouldn't people be able to buy advertising space and say what they want?   What's the difference?    And why should we single out "corporations" and restrict the way they spread their political beliefs?   A corporation is just a bunch of people who have pooled their money and distributed shares.   Why would that kind of entity be subject to restriction on their free speech?  

 

Here's the First Amendment: 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Nowhere in there do I see the words "unless it's a corporation or a rich person."  

 

I'm sorry, life isn't fair.   Some people have a lot of money, and they can buy what they want, including advertising to spread their beliefs.   Any restriction on that goes against the First Amendment. 

---

If you own a newspaper you can say whatever you want.   There is no dispute about that.   But why should unlimited free speed be restricted to people who own the media?   Why shouldn't people be able to buy advertising space and say what they want?   What's the difference?    And why should we single out "corporations" and restrict the way they spread their political beliefs?   A corporation is just a bunch of people who have pooled their money and distributed shares.   Why would that kind of entity be subject to restriction on their free speech?  

 

Here's the First Amendment: 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Nowhere in there do I see the words "unless it's a corporation or a rich person."  

 

I'm sorry, life isn't fair.   Some people have a lot of money, and they can buy what they want, including advertising to spread their beliefs.   Any restriction on that goes against the First Amendment. 

 

Ok, have fun with your oligarchy than. 

 

Or, on the other hand you could have a grievance against the broken system that is campaign finance. It does not have the will of the people in mind and the 1st Amendment was not intended in this manner. This is not about speech or the freedom there of. It is about campaign finance. 

---

I may be sorry I asked, but how is it controlling elections?

 

So you're buying whatever ideas they are selling? Or are you too smart for that, but you're concerned for those "others" who might not be as insightful and sophisticated?

 

How much is just enough and how much is too much? And if you want the government to control political speech aren't you advocating an Incumbents Protection Act?

Huh? I want campaign finance reform. The current system  is broken. It rewards the politicians who ignore their constituents in favor of special interests and the mega wealthy and punishes those who serve their constituents. 

---

last election Obama spent 987 million and Romney spent 992 million let's not act like this is something new.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance'>http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance</a>

Those are numbers each candidate spent and not how much a third party is spending. This should be disconcerting to the general public because what Koch wants and what America needs aren't the same.

---

Huh? I want campaign finance reform. The current system  is broken. It rewards the politicians who ignore their constituents in favor of special interests and the mega wealthy and punishes those who serve their constituents. 

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Those are numbers each candidate spent and not how much a third party is spending. This should be disconcerting to the general public because what Koch wants and what America needs aren't the same.

 

Not just each candidate but also their PAC and their political party combined.

---

;

;

Not just each candidate but also their PAC and their political party combined.

This isn't what a free and open society should tolerate in it's "leaders".

---