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?).

You could have just said this to begin with but nah, better to be vague so that way you can respond in a very antagonistic manner I guess?

---

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. 

You conveniently forget, I and many others have said on here before it should apply sweepingly and across the board to all parties affiliations and sources. 

---

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. 

 

What is chilling is that the bill would not only regulate "corporations" (which every organization that I mentioned falls under), but it also gives congress the power to regulate "others" which includes not only individuals, but unions as well.

 

Are people really willing to give up their First Amendment right?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

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?

 

I hope you understand, you cannot repeal the First Amendment by passing a bill in congress.  

 

And no, I would not support any effort similar to what you are describing.   I don't believe it is constitutional to regulate political speech, and that includes campaign contributions.  

---

I hope you understand, you cannot repeal the First Amendment by passing a bill in congress.


And no, I would not support any effort similar to what you are describing. I don't believe it is constitutional to regulate political speech, and that includes campaign contributions.

The corruption that comes from buying politicians has lead too must of our problems...


How is stopping the buying of then with money reducing political speech?

---

The corruption that comes from buying politicians has lead too must of our problems...


How is stopping the buying of then with money reducing political speech?

 

If it were just about buying politicians, then I'd agree with you. Money buys advertising. Should the money spent above and beyond some fixed amount that is spent advertising against a candidate be illegal? What about if that politician is currently in office? That makes it a limit on the ability to criticize the actions of the government.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The corruption that comes from buying politicians has lead too must of our problems...


How is stopping the buying of then with money reducing political speech?

 

Do we not have the freedom of expression?  Is it right to silence one particular voice in our population or any particular voice right?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I hope you understand, you cannot repeal the First Amendment by passing a bill in congress.  

 

And no, I would not support any effort similar to what you are describing.   I don't believe it is constitutional to regulate political speech, and that includes campaign contributions.  

 

That was my first thought upon reading this thread. Congress does not pass bills to amend the Constitution. If they passed a law as described it would end up in court before it had any effect. They would not pass such a law anyway, it would strike at the heart of their lifeline.

 

In short, it's too hard to imagine a way this would happen to spend much time pondering any effect it may have.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I hope you understand, you cannot repeal the First Amendment by passing a bill in congress.  

 

And no, I would not support any effort similar to what you are describing.   I don't believe it is constitutional to regulate political speech, and that includes campaign contributions.  

 

 

That was my first thought upon reading this thread. Congress does not pass bills to amend the Constitution. If they passed a law as described it would end up in court before it had any effect. They would not pass such a law anyway, it would strike at the heart of their lifeline.

 

In short, it's too hard to imagine a way this would happen to spend much time pondering any effect it may have.

 

I stand corrected.  It wasn't a "bill" that was passed in congress, it was actually an Amendment to the Constitution.  Look up S.J.Res.19.  When you read the text of the proposed amendment that passed a vote in The Senate, get back to me.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I stand corrected.  It wasn't a "bill" that was passed in congress, it was actually an Amendment to the Constitution.  Look up S.J.Res.19.  When you read the text of the proposed amendment that passed a vote in The Senate, get back to me.

 

 

Here is the published summary:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-cong...olution/19

[quote]

Constitutional Amendment - Authorizes Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Grants Congress and the states the power to implement and enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation, and to distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Declares that nothing in this amendment shall be construed to grant Congress or the states the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

[end quote]

 

I see a huge conflict of interest when the candidates themselves (the Congress) start making rules governing political speech. 

 

Also, if Congress can regulate raising and spending  money to influence elections, but "nothing in this amendment shall be construed to grant Congress or the states the power to abridge the freedom of the press..." then there is no limit on what a newspaper or TV network can say.   But there is a limit on the amount of advertising I can buy in order to make my own political statement.  That is completely unfair.   Rupert Murdoch has no limit on his speech because he owns Fox, but I have a limit on my speech because I don't own a network. 

 

It's obvious why this is a proposed Constitutional Amendment.   It has to be, because it is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. 

 

Money buys advertising.   Political advertising is free speech and free speech is protected by the First Amendment.  So what this is is an Amendment to limit the First Amendment.    I say a big flat NO to that.   I do not want to repeal any part of the First Amendment. 

 

This is an attempt to limit  the power of people who have a lot of money.  But you cannot do that and maintain a free society.  Money is power, always has been and always will be. 

---

Solid argument can't find any flaws in the logic so I'm with you marty

---

You conveniently forget, I and many others have said on here before it should apply sweepingly and across the board to all parties affiliations and sources. 

You say that, but we both know you don't really mean it. 

 

As Marty pointed out above, any attempt to limit free speech, regardless of what either party thinks, should be resisted at any cost. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You say that, but we both know you don't really mean it. 

 

As Marty pointed out above, any attempt to limit free speech, regardless of what either party thinks, should be resisted at any cost. 

What makes you think I don't really mean it? Rhetoric and insults aside what makes you think I do not mean something I have been consistent on here about?

---

What makes you think I don't really mean it? Rhetoric and insults aside what makes you think I do not mean something I have been consistent on here about?

 

Cause you're a progressive liberal, and we all know they're just liars.  I mean liberals being consistent on something?  Unthinkable!

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Cause you're a progressive liberal, and we all know they're just liars. I mean liberals being consistent on something? Unthinkable!

That moment when you ask yourself, "Is FBT just a gigantic troll, fishing for reactions and not interested in discussion at all?", and the answer becomes so glaringly obvious that your mind is blown.

---

That moment when you ask yourself, "Is FBT just a gigantic troll, fishing for reactions and not interested in discussion at all?", and the answer becomes so glaringly obvious that your mind is blown.

 

Reminds me of someone else who used to post here.  Actually reminds me of a couple of people who used to post here.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I stand corrected.  It wasn't a "bill" that was passed in congress, it was actually an Amendment to the Constitution.  Look up S.J.Res.19.  When you read the text of the proposed amendment that passed a vote in The Senate, get back to me.

 

It passed A vote, but it's a long way from amending the Constitution. Still, your point is taken. An amendment like this would be a bad thing because, as Marty pointed out, it would limit free speech.

 

I'm assuming you are also against this bill. I bet this is one of the rare occasions where you agree with the ACLU.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

 

 

Here is the published summary:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-cong...olution/19

[quote]

Constitutional Amendment - Authorizes Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Grants Congress and the states the power to implement and enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation, and to distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Declares that nothing in this amendment shall be construed to grant Congress or the states the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

[end quote]

 

I see a huge conflict of interest when the candidates themselves (the Congress) start making rules governing political speech. 

 

Also, if Congress can regulate raising and spending  money to influence elections, but "nothing in this amendment shall be construed to grant Congress or the states the power to abridge the freedom of the press..." then there is no limit on what a newspaper or TV network can say.   But there is a limit on the amount of advertising I can buy in order to make my own political statement.  That is completely unfair.   Rupert Murdoch has no limit on his speech because he owns Fox, but I have a limit on my speech because I don't own a network. 

 

It's obvious why this is a proposed Constitutional Amendment.   It has to be, because it is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. 

 

Money buys advertising.   Political advertising is free speech and free speech is protected by the First Amendment.  So what this is is an Amendment to limit the First Amendment.    I say a big flat NO to that.   I do not want to repeal any part of the First Amendment. 

 

This is an attempt to limit  the power of people who have a lot of money.  But you cannot do that and maintain a free society.  Money is power, always has been and always will be. 

 

Finally somebody gets it.  However, it does go a little bit further.  A TV network like CBS does have a news division and they can say whatever they want, but a program like Saturday Night Live wouldn't be allowed to air sketches such as Tina Fey portraying Sarah Palin or programs like The Daily Show to air segments regarding politics.  Those programs are not "the press".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Finally somebody gets it.  However, it does go a little bit further.  A TV network like CBS does have a news division and they can say whatever they want, but a program like Saturday Night Live wouldn't be allowed to air sketches such as Tina Fey portraying Sarah Palin or programs like The Daily Show to air segments regarding politics.  Those programs are not "the press".

This is very clearly censoring of free speech and by extension what this country stands for. 

---

It passed A vote, but it's a long way from amending the Constitution. Still, your point is taken. An amendment like this would be a bad thing because, as Marty pointed out, it would limit free speech.

 

I'm assuming you are also against this bill. I bet this is one of the rare occasions where you agree with the ACLU.

 

You are absolutely correct in that it is one of the rare occasions where I agree with the ALCU.

 

The thing that I find interesting is that this bill was overlooked by the press.  I'm willing to bet that the majority of people reading this thread had no idea that this was being proposed.  I didn't know it until I read Ted Cruz's book, A Time for Truth and actually did some research myself (his book does have footnotes citing sources).  This is the same book that the New York Times wanted to keep off of their best sellers list.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.