BREAKING: We've introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

[Highmark]

18 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Huge difference on knowing where and who donates money.  Why are you so adamant about letting those who buy government remain in the shadows?  

I'm fine with making donations public and the where is not hidden.   I really don't think in the long run it would stop people.  Big money donors don't hide what side they support.  

There is also a lot of money behind all forms of media that we don't know about and its more influential in politics than political donations.   How do you stop that?

Oh and that SC decision was about far more than dark money. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Highmark

[Mainecat]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I'm fine with making donations public and the where is not hidden.   I really don't think in the long run it would stop people.  Big money donors don't hide what side they support.  

There is also a lot of money behind all forms of media that we don't know about and its more influential in politics than political donations.   How do you stop that?

Dark money gates were opened when CU was allowed. Non profits were allowed to contribute undisclosed monies. 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, Mainecat said:

Dark money gates were opened when CU was allowed. Non profits were allowed to contribute undisclosed monies. 

Are you willing to stop ALL groups from donating money?   Including unions and associations like the American bar association and the National Education Association?

[Mainecat]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Are you willing to stop ALL groups from donating money?   Including unions and associations like the American bar association and the National Education Association?

ALL OF THEM

[Mainecat]

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

ALL OF THEM

  What do you do about the media?  They spend billions pushing an agenda under the disguise of being neutral.  You think Jeff Bezo's purchase of the WaPo wasn't anything more than a political donation?  

You want to change it don't overrule this decision....add an amendment outlying whose speech is free and whose isn't.   Good luck with that because that is what the BCRA was trying to do.

Pretty sure most of you haven't read the opinions on the case or simply can't comprehend them.  You don't rule on the constitution because of what you think might happen as a result.   That's what the liberal justices did.

   

Five justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court found that BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.^[32] The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."^[33]

Justice Kennedy's opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.^[8] The court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional, because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

How was your company different from the US Corporations in your meme?  Weren't you a part of the problem?

[SnowRider]

14 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Are you willing to stop ALL groups from donating money?   Including unions and associations like the American bar association and the National Education Association?

Yeah - that’s what the proposed legislation/amendments Repugs so fervently oppose are about 

[SnowRider]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

  What do you do about the media?  They spend billions pushing an agenda under the disguise of being neutral.  You think Jeff Bezo's purchase of the WaPo wasn't anything more than a political donation?  

You want to change it don't overrule this decision....add an amendment outlying whose speech is free and whose isn't.   Good luck with that because that is what the BCRA was trying to do.

Pretty sure most of you haven't read the opinions on the case or simply can't comprehend them.  You don't rule on the constitution because of what you think might happen as a result.   That's what the liberal justices did.

   

Five justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court found that BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.^[32] The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."^[33]

Justice Kennedy's opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.^[8] The court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional, because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

Nobody worst than Rupert Murdoch.  He’s made more people stupid on lies and misinformation than anyone.  But you and Repugs are hellbent on unlimited corporate power while diluting the influence of everyday Americans.  

[Highmark]

Just now, SnowRider said:

Nobody worst than Rupert Murdoch.  He’s made more people stupid on lies and misinformation than anyone.  But you and Repugs are hellbent on unlimited corporate power while diluting the influence of everyday Americans.  

I'm all for limiting corp power....just not their speech in most cases.   Break the big ones up!  

[SnowRider]

Just now, Highmark said:

I'm all for limiting corp power....just not their speech in most cases.   Break the big ones up!  

Corporations aren’t people but your right wing judicial zealots treat them as such.  CU is ground zero for judicial activism 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

Corporations aren’t people but your right wing judicial zealots treat them as such.  CU is ground zero for judicial activism 

Neither are Unions, associations, Planned Parenthood....list goes on and on.  All media today are nothing but corporations how do you stop them from spending money on "speech?"

The 1st amendment does not outline whose speech is protected.

A single person can be a corporation. 

[Mainecat]

19 minutes ago, Highmark said:

How was your company different from the US Corporations in your meme?  Weren't you a part of the problem?

We didn’t make political donations.

[Mainecat]

If I had my way candidates would be given 100.00 each and paid 100k a year. If you don’t like it don’t run. Run only if you want to serve your constituents and your country.

 

[SnowRider]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Neither are Unions, associations, Planned Parenthood....list goes on and on.  All media today are nothing but corporations how do you stop them from spending money on "speech?"

The 1st amendment does not outline whose speech is protected.

A single person can be a corporation. 

You keep repeating yourself.  You know it’s wrong but you’re having difficulty saying it because it’s not in line with Repug messaging.  
 

Campaign finance cases were crafted over decades by both progressives and Repugs to balance individuals, corps, free speech etc.  CU blew it up.  Now w have a decade + seeing the ramifications.  Pure judicial activism.  Multiple cases from the Roberts 🤡 Posse is why they are sitting at 26% approval.  Embarrassing but we do have a Kangaroo Court now so it’s not going to improve.  

[Steve753]

1 minute ago, Mainecat said:

If I had my way candidates would be given 100.00 each and paid 100k a year. If you don’t like it don’t run. Run only if you want to serve your constituents and your country.

 

You wouldn't have a democrat who would do that.

[Mainecat]

Just now, Steve753 said:

You wouldn't have a democrat who would do that.

You could get voters to do it.

[Steve753]

1 minute ago, Mainecat said:

You could get voters to do it.

Dem voters are to dumb. They're on the same level as today's Trumpers.

[Highmark]

13 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

We didn’t make political donations.

Doesn't change anything....you could have. 

[Mainecat]

6 minutes ago, Steve753 said:

Dem voters are to dumb. They're on the same level as today's Trumpers.

Repubs couldnt craft a bill to save their lives.

[Mainecat]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Doesn't change anything....you could have. 

You could have been a woman..what’s your point? I answered your question.

[Highmark]

17 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

You keep repeating yourself.  You know it’s wrong but you’re having difficulty saying it because it’s not in line with Repug messaging.  
 

Campaign finance cases were crafted over decades by both progressives and Repugs to balance individuals, corps, free speech etc.  CU blew it up.  Now w have a decade + seeing the ramifications.  Pure judicial activism.  Multiple cases from the Roberts 🤡 Posse is why they are sitting at 26% approval.  Embarrassing but we do have a Kangaroo Court now so it’s not going to improve.  

I keep repeating the correct things.  Sure there are some things about money in politics I would like to change but it shouldn't come by an unconstitutional law.  No different than the liberal justices you are looking at this thru an emotional lens instead of a logical one. 

Balance free speech.   What a horseshit phrase.  You rather have it or you don't. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Highmark

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

You could have been a woman..what’s your point? I answered your question.

Your meme isn't just about political donations and your company fell under that same umbrella. 

[SnowRider]

6 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I keep repeating the correct things.  Sure there are some things about money in politics I would like to change but it shouldn't come by an unconstitutional law.  No different than the liberal justices you are looking at this thru an emotional lens instead of a logical one. 

Balance free speech.   What a horseshit phrase.  You rather have it or you don't. 

 Money isn’t speech 

[Sleepr2]

55 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

ALL OF THEM

BS!