Corporations already outspend both partys

[theHawk]

Why would that be nesessary?

Why would any restriction on freedom of speech be necessary?

 

[Truthmatters]

To protect the rigths of the people.

 

[Truthmatters]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is all anyone needs to realise they did not intend corporations to have special rights to have their right to speak defended.

The founders singled out ONE industry for obvious reasons.

They could have said all corporations in all fields if that was the intenet.

They did not.

they mentioned ONLY one industry.

Freedom of the press was the only exception to Human Beings they intended.

Not one person I have ever met has been able to dismatle this arguement of mine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to Truthmatters, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..."

means that if it's a corporation buying a political ad, Congress can in fact pass laws limiting Free Speech, except for the NY Times Corp, and except for Indians owning the NY Times Corp, which would be illegal under Trurhmatters limited understanding of the Constitution