First Amendment - gutted
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
I don't think it's a matter of caring,it's a matter of some of us see the good points of it along with the bad.All some of you see is just the bad.There is a balance on this issue. We feel that it does more to clean the system up of special interest groups buying political influence.It's not a matter of taking rights.It's a matter of applying them without undo influence on politicans.
I don't think it's a matter of caring,it's a matter of some of us see the good points of it along with the bad.All some of you see is just the bad.There is a balance on this issue. We feel that it does more to clean the system up of special interest groups buying political influence.It's not a matter of taking rights.It's a matter of applying them without undo influence on politicans.
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
I don't think it's a matter of caring,it's a matter of some of us see the good points of it along with the bad.All some of you see is just the bad.There is a balance on this issue. We feel that it does more to clean the system up of special interest groups buying political influence.It's not a matter of taking rights.It's a matter of applying them without undo influence on politicans.
I don't think it's a matter of caring,it's a matter of some of us see the good points of it along with the bad.All some of you see is just the bad.There is a balance on this issue. We feel that it does more to clean the system up of special interest groups buying political influence.It's not a matter of taking rights.It's a matter of applying them without undo influence on politicans.
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
Re: pchristman
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
Excuse me Ben Franklin,but the majority don't see your point of view on this issue.
Excuse me Ben Franklin,but the majority don't see your point of view on this issue.
As an example, take a look at the 527s (names after a provision in the tax code) which the FEC is now allowing - it permits political committees to accept unlimited donations of soft money. Luckily for all of us citizens, issue ads pointing this out are now outlawed.
Postmaster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,736
Likes: 1
From: The County
pchristman
What do you think should have been done that would have stopped the special interest groups from buying political influence through our elected officials?What would some of the options to this law be?
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
Re: pchristman
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
What do you think should have been done that would have stopped the special interest groups from buying political influence through our elected officials?What would some of the options to this law be?
What do you think should have been done that would have stopped the special interest groups from buying political influence through our elected officials?What would some of the options to this law be?
Justice Scalia said: "The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech."
Justice Kennedy called the provision "a new and serious intrusion on speech."
Justice Thomas described it as "the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War."
Postmaster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,736
Likes: 1
From: The County
pchristman
I don't believe i was trying to get you sidetracked.You don't seem too happy with the reform bill.Usually if someone doesn't agree with these things they have a better idea on how it should have been handled.By you giving me options to the the bill,I get a better understanding of your point of view,other than just your comment that the bill sucks.That gives me the impression that you are not totally aware of the facts.Although not all of the Justices agreed,the majority rules.If you want more support for your view of the issue,give me some info that may change my view.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
From: Detroit Subs
Re: pchristman
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
Excuse me Ben Franklin,but the majority don't see your point of view on this issue.
Excuse me Ben Franklin,but the majority don't see your point of view on this issue.
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
From: Detroit Subs
Re: pchristman
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
What do you think should have been done that would have stopped the special interest groups from buying political influence through our elected officials?What would some of the options to this law be?
What do you think should have been done that would have stopped the special interest groups from buying political influence through our elected officials?What would some of the options to this law be?
Not every problem has to be solved by creating laws that restrict our freedom of speech or any of our protected Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
If you want to get rid of corrupt politicians, expose them. When corrupt politicians are exposed in the light of day, they usually wither and are rendered useless. Limiting your freedom of speech does exactly the opposite of what should occur. Incumbents are protected by this law; that's the ONLY reason it was enacted. It does nothing to make politicians more accountable. Do you think they're fools? Most are lawyers, do you think they would enact a law on themselves that would damage them? Wake up!!!
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
Re: pchristman
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
I don't believe i was trying to get you sidetracked.You don't seem too happy with the reform bill.Usually if someone doesn't agree with these things they have a better idea on how it should have been handled.By you giving me options to the the bill,I get a better understanding of your point of view,other than just your comment that the bill sucks.That gives me the impression that you are not totally aware of the facts.Although not all of the Justices agreed,the majority rules.If you want more support for your view of the issue,give me some info that may change my view.
I don't believe i was trying to get you sidetracked.You don't seem too happy with the reform bill.Usually if someone doesn't agree with these things they have a better idea on how it should have been handled.By you giving me options to the the bill,I get a better understanding of your point of view,other than just your comment that the bill sucks.That gives me the impression that you are not totally aware of the facts.Although not all of the Justices agreed,the majority rules.If you want more support for your view of the issue,give me some info that may change my view.
I most certainly do think the bill sucks - because it weakens the First Amendment.
I am aware of the facts (although I will not use the word totally, because the legalese of the financial portion tends to make me dizzy), but I seem to have a difficult time getting some people to believe that our Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, suffered a serious blow as a result of this law. That is too big of a price to pay, period. What kind of information will it take to convince you that our amendment has been weakened?
Postmaster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,736
Likes: 1
From: The County
I believe you when you say it has been weakened.But by changing the law so that it makes a more efficient system in regards to the campaign finance reform bill,I must say that I am in favor of it.Too many people were using their rights to corrupt the system.By those individuals being able to buy political influence,it was allowing the minority to control the majority.That had to change by whatever means possible.
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
From: Detroit Subs
Originally posted by Fordfaggiole
........That had to change by whatever means possible.
........That had to change by whatever means possible.
Cargo Master
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 26
The NRA, if wise, and they usually are, will air "news" spots or other forms of protected speech instead of "ads". I didn't join them for nothing. 
I can't wait for a paid piece of self-described political "protest" to be attacked under the law, for example.
I can't wait for a paid piece of self-described political "protest" to be attacked under the law, for example.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Buckarcher
General NON-Automotive Conversation
8
Sep 24, 2007 07:41 PM
jskufan
General NON-Automotive Conversation
62
Jan 10, 2004 07:57 AM