Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

[bripat9643]

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

 

[bripat9643]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Then ban Trade Unions from contributions. Money isn't speech, and unions aren't people. Not at all difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Of course being an idiot hack, and unions being democrat supporters, you won't agree with this.

I have no problem banning union money at all.
What exactly we are addressing is bribing elected officials who are suppose to representing each and every constituent, instead they end up representing "dark money" from who knows where.
Of course the right is all for it as they are the bigger whores and have no problem at all with politicians for sale to the highest bidder. How patriotic of these folks.

Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign donations.

Why is it the libturds are always getting those two things mixed up?

 

[koshergrl]

Corporations are tax treatment statuses for the purposes of tax law. They are documents with all kinds of numbers the feds want to see.

People are people.

Not the same.
.

"... company or group of people"..... so people.
"...a group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough."....

Corporations are by definition, people.

cor·po·ra·tion
ˌkôrpəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: corporation; plural noun: corporations

1. a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
   synonyms: company, firm, business, concern, operation, house, organization, agency, trust, partnership;More
   conglomerate, group, chain, multinational;
   informaloutfit, setup
   "the chairman of the corporation"
   • a group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.
     noun: municipal corporation; plural noun: municipal corporations

 

[nat4900]

Do you think all the stock holders should be charged with murder? How about if the EPA dumps pollution into a river? Should all the employees go to prison?

No, just the CEOs and board members.......and, yes, the head of the EPA should resign and the private company that polluted the river should be held accountable.

Want to see ethics and responsibilities come back into play??? Do the above.

 

[g5000]

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

I watched the McCain-Feingold bill from the day it was hatched until final passage, and observed all the amendments that were made to it.

When I saw that bit about banning election related speech 60 days before an election, I accurately predicted the rise of what became known as "527 organizations", named after the section in the Internal Revenue Code. You all may remember the most famous 527 organization to arise, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Swiftboating preceded Citizens United. McCain-Feingold didn't do shit to reform campaign financing.

Did you know the first draft of McCain-Feingold had a provision which prohibited franking privileges for Congress during an election year?

The franking privilege allows an incumbent Congressman to mail you newsletters telling you what a great guy he is and how hard he is working for you, for free! He does not have to pay postage.

Would you be surprised to learn that provision was struck down faster than you can say "an unlevel playing field works for me"? Congress did not want that freebie which gave them a leg up on any challengers taken away from them.

That was the tipoff McCain-Feingold was not intended to reform campaign finance. It was intended to ensure incumbents keep getting re-elected.

In 50 years of campaign finance reform legislation and Supreme Court decisions, the re-election rate of incumbents has been COMPLETELY UNCHANGED!!!!

A Congressman in the House of Representatives who chooses to run for re-election has a 98 percent chance of winning.

That is not an exaggeration. That is an actual fact.

A Senator who chooses to run for re-election has more than an 80 percent chance of winning.

This, despite a Congressional approval rating in the single digits. This, despite half a century of campaign finance reforms.

If you think a constitutional amendment will change that, you are a retard.

We have an American Politboro, ladies and gentlemen.

Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets

 

[g5000]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Then ban Trade Unions from contributions. Money isn't speech, and unions aren't people. Not at all difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Of course being an idiot hack, and unions being democrat supporters, you won't agree with this.

Ah, another interesting piece of political hackery was the DISCLOSE Act of 2010.

This was a bill which would have increased disclosure requirements for any organization which aired a political ad.

Sounds good, right? But while all the piss drinkers were getting their info from piss outlets, I actually read the bill, and there was a big surprise in it.

The DISCLOSE Act had an very interesting exemption in it. Any political organization which had been around for more than 10 years, and had representation in all 50 states would be exempt from the act.

Hmmmm...what kind of organization has been around for more than 10 years and has representation in all 50 states, you may wonder.

How about...big unions?

How about...Move-On?

No wonder assholes like Michael Moore supported the bill. It would have killed any upstart competition!

 

[g5000]

You jackasses want campaign finance reform? REAL reform?

Then stop giving the goddam federal government more and more and more and more power, you fucking retards!!!

The money flows to the power. Take away power, you take away the incentive to buy it.

Money will always find a way around the rules.

You fucking assholes scream for more government control over every aspect of your lives, and then have the AUDACITY to whine when that power gets hijacked by people with money! And then you go out and demand more government power?!?! ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID!?!?

Rhetorical question.

If a Congressman doesn't have the power to put a carve-out in the tax code, then the special interest that would benefit from the carve-out won't have any incentive to bribe him! See how fucking SIMPLE that is?

You fucking morons just handed an ASTRONOMICAL amount of power to the government over YOUR VERY FUCKING HEALTH!!!! You handed the keys to your very life over to the government.

When that, too, gets hijacked, don't come whining to me about how we need campaign finance reform because some big medical conglomerate which owns Congress totally controls your health insurance exchange and just killed your wife or kid or grandmother.

You fucking idiots.

 

[g5000]

Congress could decide tomorrow that Big Solar should get a tax exemption for every cloudy day. And there is nothing to stop them from doing that.

Instead of arguing over the insanity of giving Congress that kind of power, we would instead be writing hundreds of topics of what comprises a "cloudy day", and what percentage of America would have to be "cloudy" before the exemption kicks in. People who love solar would be calling Republicans evil names for not agreeing that 20 percent of America being "cloudy" is enough. People who hate solar would be arguing 89 percent of America should be "cloudy" before the exemption kicks in.

Meanwhile, Big Solar would be laughing their asses off. Campaign donations well spent, fellas! We will have that exemption, it is just a question now of how much we'll be raking in as the rubes fight over the details.

You dumbasses can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think all the stock holders should be charged with murder? How about if the EPA dumps pollution into a river? Should all the employees go to prison?

No, just the CEOs and board members.......and, yes, the head of the EPA should resign and the private company that polluted the river should be held accountable.

Want to see ethics and responsibilities come back into play??? Do the above.

So if an employee of a trucking company deliberately runs someone over, all the executives should get the death penalty?

Really?

 

[g5000]

Do you think all the stock holders should be charged with murder? How about if the EPA dumps pollution into a river? Should all the employees go to prison?

No, just the CEOs and board members.......and, yes, the head of the EPA should resign and the private company that polluted the river should be held accountable.

Want to see ethics and responsibilities come back into play??? Do the above.

So if an employee of a trucking company deliberately runs someone over, all the executives should get the death penalty?

Really?

That is nowhere close to what he said.

 

[bripat9643]

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

I watched the McCain-Feingold bill from the day it was hatched until final passage, and observed all the amendments that were made to it.

When I saw that bit about banning election related speech 60 days before an election, I accurately predicted the rise of what became known as "527 organizations", named after the section in the Internal Revenue Code. You all may remember the most famous 527 organization to arise, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Swiftboating preceded Citizens United. McCain-Feingold didn't do shit to reform campaign financing.

Did you know the first draft of McCain-Feingold had a provision which prohibited franking privileges for Congress during an election year?

The franking privilege allows an incumbent Congressman to mail you newsletters telling you what a great guy he is and how hard he is working for you, for free! He does not have to pay postage.

Would you be surprised to learn that provision was struck down faster than you can say "an unlevel playing field works for me"? Congress did not want that freebie which gave them a leg up on any challengers taken away from them.

That was the tipoff McCain-Feingold was not intended to reform campaign finance. It was intended to ensure incumbents keep getting re-elected.

In 50 years of campaign finance reform legislation and Supreme Court decisions, the re-election rate of incumbents has been COMPLETELY UNCHANGED!!!!

A Congressman in the House of Representatives who chooses to run for re-election has a 98 percent chance of winning.

That is not an exaggeration. That is an actual fact.

A Senator who chooses to run for re-election has more than an 80 percent chance of winning.

This, despite a Congressional approval rating in the single digits. This, despite half a century of campaign finance reforms.

If you think a constitutional amendment will change that, you are a retard.

We have an American Politboro, ladies and gentlemen.

Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets

Term limits is the answer for that. Congress will never reform itself.

 

[nat4900]

So if an employee of a trucking company deliberately runs someone over, all the executives should get the death penalty?

Make up all the dumb scenarios that you wish, nitwit, but the point remains:

If a corporations wants to have the same rights as an individual, then that same corporations MUST bear the same responsibilities for wrong doings as any individual.

 

[kiwiman127]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Then ban Trade Unions from contributions. Money isn't speech, and unions aren't people. Not at all difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Of course being an idiot hack, and unions being democrat supporters, you won't agree with this.

I have no problem banning union money at all.
What exactly we are addressing is bribing elected officials who are suppose to representing each and every constituent, instead they end up representing "dark money" from who knows where.
Of course the right is all for it as they are the bigger whores and have no problem at all with politicians for sale to the highest bidder. How patriotic of these folks.

Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign donations.

Why is it the libturds are always getting those two things mixed up?

Failed the test to get your GED I suppose.

 

[jasonnfree]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

It's about money in politics is all. I don't know why this should affect the average person. Of course, usmb right wingers aren't average either. They may not have much money, but they sure defend to death those that have lots and lots of money to bribe politicians, like the cokes, and adelsons.

 

[bripat9643]

So if an employee of a trucking company deliberately runs someone over, all the executives should get the death penalty?

make up all the dumb scenario that you wish, nitwit, but the point remains:

If a corporations wants to have the same rights as an individual, then that same corporations MUST bear the same responsibilities for wrong doings as any individual.

Corporations don't have the same rights as individuals. However, that argument is moot because the Constitution doesn't mention persons with regard to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

 

[bripat9643]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Then ban Trade Unions from contributions. Money isn't speech, and unions aren't people. Not at all difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Of course being an idiot hack, and unions being democrat supporters, you won't agree with this.

I have no problem banning union money at all.
What exactly we are addressing is bribing elected officials who are suppose to representing each and every constituent, instead they end up representing "dark money" from who knows where.
Of course the right is all for it as they are the bigger whores and have no problem at all with politicians for sale to the highest bidder. How patriotic of these folks.

Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign donations.

Why is it the libturds are always getting those two things mixed up?

Failed the test to get your GED I suppose.

You must be referring to the turds who keep insisting Citizens United has something to do with campaign donations.

 

[jasonnfree]

So if an employee of a trucking company deliberately runs someone over, all the executives should get the death penalty?

Make up all the dumb scenarios that you wish, nitwit, but the point remains:

If a corporations wants to have the same rights as an individual, then that same corporations MUST bear the same responsibilities for wrong doings as any individual.

That's right. They should have to register for the draft and vote using diebold machines like the rest of us.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think all the stock holders should be charged with murder? How about if the EPA dumps pollution into a river? Should all the employees go to prison?

No, just the CEOs and board members.......and, yes, the head of the EPA should resign and the private company that polluted the river should be held accountable.

Want to see ethics and responsibilities come back into play??? Do the above.

So if an employee of a trucking company deliberately runs someone over, all the executives should get the death penalty?

Really?

That is nowhere close to what he said.

He doesn't want to draw the line between personal responsibility and corporate responsibility, so it's the logical conclusion.

 

[kiwiman127]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Then ban Trade Unions from contributions. Money isn't speech, and unions aren't people. Not at all difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Of course being an idiot hack, and unions being democrat supporters, you won't agree with this.

I have no problem banning union money at all.
What exactly we are addressing is bribing elected officials who are suppose to representing each and every constituent, instead they end up representing "dark money" from who knows where.
Of course the right is all for it as they are the bigger whores and have no problem at all with politicians for sale to the highest bidder. How patriotic of these folks.

Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign donations.

Why is it the libturds are always getting those two things mixed up?

Failed the test to get your GED I suppose.

You must be referring to the turds who keep insisting Citizens United has something to do with campaign donations.

In the post you initially replied to, did I specifically state "campaign donations"? I did mention "dark money" though.
Please learn to read.

 

[Flopper]

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.