Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It doesn't favor anybody but corporate hegemony. The Republicans are all happy about it, it's not that the democrats think the 'R's will benefit, although.......it is a neocon wet dream.
lol! That made me laugh.there's not a dime's worth of difference between the remocrats and depublicans
We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation.
.
We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation.
.
Good post, however I'm only going to address this portion of it (for various reasons none of which have anything to do with the merits of your arguments), I agree with your conclusion however you're suggestion is incomplete to whit; "We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation without violating the constitution"
I actually don't totally agree with that conclusion because contrary to populist misconceptions , money does indeed equal speech, as in if I pay you to speak for me, I am converting my money (a medium of exchange) into speech just as if I pay you for a dozen oranges I am converting my money into a dozen oranges.
That being said you have managed to convey that you understand the totality of the circumstances surrounding this decision much better than the vast majority of the posters here that have attempted to address it as well as adding some cogent supporting material, well done and much appreciated!
Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).Imagine if all candidates where truly given equal time on TV and Radio at no cost.
Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.If a station did not want to give the time away for free than they simply would not cover ANY political content.
That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).Corporations could then choose to run ads telling everyone who they support.
This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.Currently it's between those and only those who can raise the money. We don't even know how many other better candidates we might have had, if they could have afforded to run. So what we are left with is a system where you can't run if you can't raise funds to do so.
You know what is becoming very clear....right wingers have no real moral or deep seated beliefs about politics really. they just follow what the GOP tells them is good. They rally with tea parties protesting against affordable health insurance and for tax cuts for the rich. They cheer for a supreme court ruling that diminishes individual rights and power. They claim money = speech and corporation = a person. They claim this levels the playing field when a corporation can spend a billion dollars on ads for a candidate, AND SO CAN WE!
LOL!
I don't understand the mindset that would have people vote against their own interests.
* * * *
Dante Speaketh
* * * *
Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).Imagine if all candidates where truly given equal time on TV and Radio at no cost.
Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.If a station did not want to give the time away for free than they simply would not cover ANY political content.
That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).Corporations could then choose to run ads telling everyone who they support.
This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.Currently it's between those and only those who can raise the money. We don't even know how many other better candidates we might have had, if they could have afforded to run. So what we are left with is a system where you can't run if you can't raise funds to do so.
It was about as activist as IT gets.
It doesn't favor anybody but corporate hegemony. The Republicans are all happy about it, it's not that the democrats think the 'R's will benefit, although.......it is a neocon wet dream.
Hate. Some of them hate progress. Some of them hate other Americans. Some of them are just reactionaries.The ACLU says this kind of thing all the time. Yet people attack the ACLU for it's principles.
You know what is becoming very clear....right wingers have no real moral or deep seated beliefs about politics really. they just follow what the GOP tells them is good. They rally with tea parties protesting against affordable health insurance and for tax cuts for the rich. They cheer for a supreme court ruling that diminishes individual rights and power. They claim money = speech and corporation = a person. They claim this levels the playing field when a corporation can spend a billion dollars on ads for a candidate, AND SO CAN WE!
LOL!
I don't understand the mindset that would have people vote against their own interests.
It was about as activist as IT gets.
-- Wiki. Wiki, as sources go, often sucks. But they did capture the essence of the term "judicial activism" fairly well, here, anyway.Judicial activism is a critical term used to describe judicial rulings that are suspected to be based upon personal and political considerations other than existing law.
...
...
...That's not activism. That's faithful adherence to clear unequivocal mandate.
Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).Imagine if all candidates where truly given equal time on TV and Radio at no cost.
Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.
That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).
This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.Currently it's between those and only those who can raise the money. We don't even know how many other better candidates we might have had, if they could have afforded to run. So what we are left with is a system where you can't run if you can't raise funds to do so.
I realize my suggestions would require MAJOR reform and probably a constitutional amendment but I think it would yield a solution to the problem our system currently faces. The 1st amendment would not be an issue becasue the media (press) would be making the choice. Either they cover or they do not cover. If they cover than the cost of that choice would be allowing the equal time. Yes, this is radical and yes I realize it probably will never happen but I'd rather see this kind of change than the kind we might see if we keep down the road we're currently heading.
Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).
Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.
That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).
This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.
I realize my suggestions would require MAJOR reform and probably a constitutional amendment but I think it would yield a solution to the problem our system currently faces. The 1st amendment would not be an issue becasue the media (press) would be making the choice. Either they cover or they do not cover. If they cover than the cost of that choice would be allowing the equal time. Yes, this is radical and yes I realize it probably will never happen but I'd rather see this kind of change than the kind we might see if we keep down the road we're currently heading.
Media would fight for the rights to collect campaigning dollars. It would be just another battle for cash verses integrity.
I realize my suggestions would require MAJOR reform and probably a constitutional amendment but I think it would yield a solution to the problem our system currently faces. The 1st amendment would not be an issue becasue the media (press) would be making the choice. Either they cover or they do not cover. If they cover than the cost of that choice would be allowing the equal time. Yes, this is radical and yes I realize it probably will never happen but I'd rather see this kind of change than the kind we might see if we keep down the road we're currently heading.
Media would fight for the rights to collect campaigning dollars. It would be just another battle for cash verses integrity.
Many who support this will regret this soon enough. Then you have the legal wannabees here who ignore the dissenters on the SCOTUS.
read the dissent
Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. A while back when he went on a rant about gays not being normal. His opinions on this subject are highly suspect.Many who support this will regret this soon enough. Then you have the legal wannabees here who ignore the dissenters on the SCOTUS.
read the dissent
Yes. Read the idiotic dissent.
Then read Justice Scalia's concurrence with the majority decision and witness him skewering the dishonesty expressed in the dissent.