Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
- Thread starter
- #21
Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Money Is Not Speech
WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaign donations pay for more than political ads and should not be protected as free speech, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told a Senate panel Wednesday in urging them to rein in the billions of dollars shaping elections.
The retired justice reminded lawmakers that political donations funded the burglary at the Watergate office complex under President Richard Nixon. That break-in at the Democratic National Committee is not speech, Stevens argued in a rare appearance of a former justice in the Senate.
"While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself," Stevens said. "After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment."
I know. But why do you agree with Justice Stevens and not Justice Kennedy? Do you have a constitutional argument or is it purely ideological? Nothing wrong with it if the last (purely ideological) is the case. Just trying to flush out where others stand and why