cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Advisor

on the first

a good read. just a small snip  </p>http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutc...     

 

But how can liberals, who so expansively interpret other constitutional provisions, narrow the First Amendment so that campaign finance no longer gets protection?

 

 

stice Breyer’s dissent today shows the way, as he revives the old Progressive conception of freedom of speech as serving instrumental purposes (which he calls “First Amendment interests”), rather than protecting individual rights or reining in potential government abuses. And once we identify those “First Amendment interests,” we must limit freedom of speech to ensure that they are advanced.But how can liberals, who so expansively interpret other constitutional provisions, narrow the First Amendment so that campaign finance no longer gets protection? Justice Breyer’s dissent today shows the way, as he revives the old Progressive conception of freedom of speech as serving instrumental purposes (which he calls “First Amendment interests”), rather than protecting individual rights or reining in potential government abuses. And once we identify those “First Amendment interests,” we must limit freedom of speech to ensure that they are advanced.

10 Replies
Veteran Advisor

Re: on the first

How in the he double l can money be considered free speech or ANY kind speech??? You have a $200,000 tractor and I have an old $6000 tractor. Does that mean your tractor speaks more than mine?? You should not have a larger say because you have more money than me. BTW campaign finance never had protection. It always had limits until this SC decided corps were same as people!
Honored Advisor

Re: on the first

Well, I don`t know how the liberals can be so hypocritcal as to favor labor unions at every turn, fighting "right to work" and such, yet deny the fact that corporations are EVERY bit people as much as labor unions are. 

 

When it came to the Taliban tactics of Apple Computer and American Airlines bullying the entire state of Arizona, that was okay with the liberals.  What`s good for the goose is good for the gander, corporations SHOULD get more consideration when it comes to donating to campaigns, if only to LEVEL the playing field.

Veteran Advisor

Re: on the first

So, unions, law firms, people, etc, didn't have limits on how much they could contribute before? How is the treatment of gays by chicklefilay different from companies rejecting a state's decision also to discriminate a group of people or hobbit lobbit doing the same thing. You get all indignant when someone steps on your favorite biases but cheer on those that agree with you. BOOOOOOOOO!!
Senior Advisor

Re: on the first


@schnurrbart wrote:
So, unions, law firms, people, etc, didn't have limits on how much they could contribute before? How is the treatment of gays by chicklefilay different from companies rejecting a state's decision also to discriminate a group of people or hobbit lobbit doing the same thing. You get all indignant when someone steps on your favorite biases but cheer on those that agree with you. BOOOOOOOOO!!

This ruling puts individuals on the same level as corporations. Now Fox news and CBS don't have more free speech than does a private citizen.

Honored Advisor

Re: on the first

Chick-Filet and Hobby Lobby opperated within their own cocoon, they weren`t doning anything TO anyone.  Apple Computer, American Airlines and others extorted their will upon an entire state!  What those corporations did to Arizona was NO DIFFERENT than if the Mafia kidnapped someone and cut off their ear and sent it with a note demanding $10 million, by Tuesday or there will be more pieces to come.

 

I`m a pragmatist and right now the crooked corporations are lest hostile towards my and the country`s best interests.  I don`t like or trust corporations or the Koch Brothers, the crooked Kochs want amnesty for illegals and free trade....but so do the Low Information Voters.  If Koch`s run things, they`ll keep the Mexicans too busy working to collect welfare checks or to vote or play paddy-cake with fat assed white chicks.   If cadidates that the Kochs control are in power, perhaps the Mexicans will "self deport" when they see there isn`t so many goodies and nothing but work for them here....I know, I`m probaby just being optimistic, but hey as far down the tubes this country is, it`s all I`ve got  Smiley Happy

 

If there was any sensible ways out of this mess, that ship has long sailed.  I think we could`ve solved real problems if we had a leader that brought this country together and we all worked and made sacrifices for the common good of the country.  Sorry in advance for being so graphic, but right now it`s like choosing your own rapist and trying to figure out the one with the smallest dlck.

 

But sadly, here is the real inside baseball on this:  Adelson and the Kochs will choose the top tier cadidates, the "Ron Pauls" no longer will stand a chance.  The Low Information Voters will only be able to choose from candidates that are hand picked by the 1%    ...kind of funny, actually Smiley Happy   Tiddle-Dee or Tiddle-Dum ...the guy that owns all the horses in the race, the race track and the betting booth is always going to win, regardless of the outcome of the race.

Senior Contributor

Re: on the first

 

When the conservatives boycott ( insert comapany here ) it is called freedom of speech.

 

When  fair minded liberals do it they think it is anti american  bullying or facism or some such  and screech it through out the land.

 

Yet another reason you will continue to lose.  Smiley Happy

Veteran Advisor

Re: on the first

You championed the decision to money the same as speech andnow you are trying to throw the krotch bros under the bus. Why?? So chikles and hobbit boycotted gays and women's rights and that is different than some companies boycotting a state? Oh, yeah, those two companies did something you agree with but you don't agree with someone doing the same because a state passed a law against and entire group of people.
Veteran Advisor

Re: on the first

Really? You can give as money to a campaign as either of those two tv networks can? Well, I didn't know you were that rich! Here is a pretty good explanation of what this did.

"Technically, the ruling will only affect a few hundred very wealthy donors. It struck down as a violation of the First Amendment the aggregate limit of $123,200 that an individual can disburse among candidates and parties. A wealthy donor now can max out contributions in all U.S. House and Senate races.
Before Wednesday’s ruling, for example, a donor could give no more than $48,600 to candidates collectively every two years. Now, a donor can give to as many candidates as he or she pleases. Likewise, before the ruling, a donor could have given up to $74,600 to national parties or groups in an election cycle. Now, the sky is the limit."
Senior Advisor

Re: on the first


@schnurrbart wrote:
Really? You can give as money to a campaign as either of those two tv networks can? Well, I didn't know you were that rich! Here is a pretty good explanation of what this did.

"Technically, the ruling will only affect a few hundred very wealthy donors. It struck down as a violation of the First Amendment the aggregate limit of $123,200 that an individual can disburse among candidates and parties. A wealthy donor now can max out contributions in all U.S. House and Senate races.
Before Wednesday’s ruling, for example, a donor could give no more than $48,600 to candidates collectively every two years. Now, a donor can give to as many candidates as he or she pleases. Likewise, before the ruling, a donor could have given up to $74,600 to national parties or groups in an election cycle. Now, the sky is the limit."

I have to buy air time. CBS and Fox news do not.