Buying Votes Protected Free Speech?

[KissMy]

Since SCOTUS says that money is free speech, then Buying Votes is Protected Free Speech?

If money is free speech, then I should be able to allow the candidate handing me the largest pile of free speech to get my vote or pay me not to vote for someone else.

It should be legal for a candidate to buy votes or pay people not to vote.

Republicans spent over $200 per voter in the Iowa caucus on negative adds. They should have just gave me $200 to not vote for their opponent.

 

[ScienceRocks]

yes

 

[Lakhota]

IMO, the Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS was/is the most damaging blow to democracy in my lifetime - so far that I can think of.

 

[Lakhota]

Chief Justice John Roberts' Defense Of Supreme Court Ethics Doesn't Soothe Critics

 

[DaGoose]

IMO, the Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS was/is the most damaging blow to democracy in my lifetime - so far that I can think of.

Well if you ever want a favorable ruling from the SCOTUS just take them duck hunting like Cheney did with Scalia.

Nope, no conflict of interest there, is there?

 

[KissMy]

It's time someone took vote buying to SCOTUS, because I would not mind getting paid to vote. It is about time us citizens got some of those huge campaign funds instead of the bias media. The media just frames the news in favor of the candidate who spends the most with their organization.

 

[hortysir]

Buying votes goes all the way back to George Washington, handing out gallons upon gallons of rum, wine and beer.


So maybe they WERE Liberals, after all

 

[KissMy]

Now political organizations can hold block parties where they hand out booze, drugs & money for people who get on the bus that will transport them to the poll to vote for their candidate.

 

[konradv]

Now political organizations can hold block parties where they hand out booze, drugs & money for people who get on the bus that will transport them to the poll to vote for their candidate.

I'm worried about the people hyped up on all that tea.

 

[WatertheTree]

Since SCOTUS says that money is free speech, then Buying Votes is Protected Free Speech?

If money is free speech, then I should be able to allow the candidate handing me the largest pile of free speech to get my vote or pay me not to vote for someone else.

It should be legal for a candidate to buy votes or pay people not to vote.

Republicans spent over $200 per voter in the Iowa caucus on negative adds. They should have just gave me $200 to not vote for their opponent.

This is probably the best argument I have ever heard regarding Ron Pauls electability.

I can hear the federal reserves printing presses going like crazy, wonder when the checks are going to go out.

 

[occupied]

I'm just guessing that you are not serious but if money=speech then buying individual votes would be an interesting test case of their resolve to protect the ability of deep pockets to buy elections.

 

[KissMy]

Since SCOTUS says that money is free speech, then Buying Votes is Protected Free Speech?

If money is free speech, then I should be able to allow the candidate handing me the largest pile of free speech to get my vote or pay me not to vote for someone else.

It should be legal for a candidate to buy votes or pay people not to vote.

Republicans spent over $200 per voter in the Iowa caucus on negative adds. They should have just gave me $200 to not vote for their opponent.

This is probably the best argument I have ever heard regarding Ron Pauls electability.

I can hear the federal reserves printing presses going like crazy, wonder when the checks are going to go out.

Oh yes - You know everyone on the government dole is voting for more handouts.

 

[bripat9643]

Since SCOTUS says that money is free speech, then Buying Votes is Protected Free Speech?

If money is free speech, then I should be able to allow the candidate handing me the largest pile of free speech to get my vote or pay me not to vote for someone else.

Isn't that exactly what turds like you do? Don't you give your vote to the candidate who promises you the most free stuff at the taxpayer's expense?

It should be legal for a candidate to buy votes or pay people not to vote.

Republicans spent over $200 per voter in the Iowa caucus on negative adds. They should have just gave me $200 to not vote for their opponent.

If that were made legal, no one would notice the difference.

 

[bripat9643]

IMO, the Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS was/is the most damaging blow to democracy in my lifetime - so far that I can think of.

In other words, it's an obstacle to unlimited looting.

That's exactly why I support it.

 

[occupied]

IMO, the Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS was/is the most damaging blow to democracy in my lifetime - so far that I can think of.

In other words, it's an obstacle to unlimited looting.

That's exactly why I support it.

You support it because it favors republicans and no other reason.

 

[konradv]

IMO, the Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS was/is the most damaging blow to democracy in my lifetime - so far that I can think of.

In other words, it's an obstacle to unlimited looting.

That's exactly why I support it.

You don't think corporations are looting, too?

 

[waltky]

George Carlin's 7 deadly words gonna finally get SCOTUS attention...

Supreme Court mulls profanity, nudity on network TV
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - F-bombs and bare breasts could be coming to network TV.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments in a case that could rewrite the rule book for Fox, ABC and other broadcast stations now prohibited from pushing nudity and profanity on the public airwaves. In an unlikely alliance, the Obama administration has partnered with the Family Research Council, Morality in Media and other socially conservative groups in arguing that network television should remain a “safe harbor” for children and families, where one need not fear “wardrobe malfunctions” during the Super Bowl or dirty words during the Billboard Music Awards.

But the entertainment industry’s heavy hitters, led by Fox, have mounted a First Amendment case and reject the notion that, in the age of unregulated cable channels and countless raunchy websites just a click away, the Federal Communications Commission has to play the role of moral gatekeeper for American families. A ruling is expected this summer. If the justices declare current FCC regulations unconstitutional, the R-rated effects eventually will be seen from the living room couch. “I don’t think things would change overnight, but I do think it would change. Slowly, more and more profanity and nudity would start to creep into much of the programming,” said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University.

Networks’ decision-making, Ms. Bloch said, “will be a dollar calculation, not a moral calculation,” and television executives could bet that more sex, violence and four-letter words will equal bigger profits. Obama administration attorneys and others argue that the media world of the 21st century is polluted with enough filth, and giving broadcasters carte blanche to do as they please will mean the death knell for family-friendly programming. “This is about letting children be children,” said Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council. “The First Amendment is not a license for an adult to say or do anything they want, anytime they want, in the presence of children. If you have 800 channels out there that you can put your content on, what’s the big deal about having four or five” stations free of objectionable material?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seems to agree. At Tuesday’s hearing, Chief Justice Roberts, the only member of the court with young children, said there are hundreds of cable channels not bound by any FCC restrictions, and that should be enough for people who want racier fare. “All we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few channels where … they are not going to hear the S-word, the F-word, they are not going to see nudity,” the chief justice said. The broad question of how far networks’ free-speech rights extend may not be resolved with this case, and the court could choose to limit its ruling to the FCC’s current indecency enforcement policy, which was declared unconstitutional by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals two years ago.

MORE

Uncle Ferd hopin' dey allow nekid womens on TV.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

IMO, the Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS was/is the most damaging blow to democracy in my lifetime - so far that I can think of.

In other words, it's an obstacle to unlimited looting.

That's exactly why I support it.

Huh?

How is the Citizens United ruling an "obstacle to unlimited looting"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

IMO, the Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS was/is the most damaging blow to democracy in my lifetime - so far that I can think of.

In other words, it's an obstacle to unlimited looting.

That's exactly why I support it.

You support it because it favors republicans and no other reason.

It doesn't "favor" Republicans.

Democrats receive just as much money as Republicans do, from Unions and Corporations - all allowed by Citizens United.

 

[KissMy]

Money = Free Speech

Handing me a hand full of cash is the same as asking me to vote for you.