Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment

[Cecilie1200]

"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.

Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?

Except for prohibitions against foreign sources of contributions, insofar as they can be enforced, and, subsequently, the need for disclosure, there are no good reasons for limiting the amount of money that a free people may contribute to any cause, particularly one that touches on the free-expression of ideas and the pursuit of political goals; attempts to limit the amount of campaign contributions are arbitrary and corrupting. Criminalization of that which is not criminal or contrary to the integrity of our national sovereignty is stupid and, ultimately, motivated by a lust for power and control over the dissemination of information--to usurp or quash.

The thing is, money BUYS stuff - like political influence. Not everyone out there wants things that benefit everyone else. Some folks want things that only benefit them and actually hurt others. Such folks have been known to give large amounts of money to politicians who get elected and then reciprocate, by giving the original guys what they wanted to begin with.

Seems to me this is one very good reason for limiting the amount of money people can contribute to a cause.

You're very backward. People don't go out and choose some random politician and say, "Hey, I'll give you a bunch of money, and you support THIS side of THIS issue", and then he does it. They go find someone who ALREADY supports that side of that issue, and give him money to help him do what he was going to do anyway.

There is NO good reason to limit anyone's right to support whatever cause they want in whatever way they want.

If you want to take the financial incentives out of politics, why don't you do it where it will REALLY count: making politicians much less valuable by limiting the amount of financial goodies they have to disburse via the taxpayers' wallets? Oh, but no liberal would ever suggest THAT. No, no, they've got to keep politicians robbing taxpayers for social programs. and just silence all those assholes out there who think they have a right to oppose your agenda, right?

You're fooling no one. You don't care about taking money out of politics. You care about taking non-liberal support out of politics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most municipal governments are corporations.

Oddball pointed that out above and I suggested an amendment to the concept of an amendment to the amendment.

So basically, you think the government should legislate who gets the right of free speech? Uhhhhmmmm, no. Rights are not for the government to decide. They are.... what's that phrase..... 'endowed by our Creator'. The government - and you - can go fuck yourselves and your plan to destroy free speech.

I certainly believe We the People can determine the corporations cannot be determined as people and with rights as people.

Oh, the Creator never said corporations were endowed with rights, California Girl, and such tarty language for a religious girl.

 

[California Girl]

Oddball pointed that out above and I suggested an amendment to the concept of an amendment to the amendment.

So basically, you think the government should legislate who gets the right of free speech? Uhhhhmmmm, no. Rights are not for the government to decide. They are.... what's that phrase..... 'endowed by our Creator'. The government - and you - can go fuck yourselves and your plan to destroy free speech.

I certainly believe We the People can determine the corporations cannot be determined as people and with rights as people.

Oh, the Creator never said corporations were endowed with rights, California Girl, and such tarty language for a religious girl.

Oh, so you speak on behalf of Mitt and the Creator now. My, you must be really important.

And... at the risk of repeating myself... Fuck off Jokey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You certainly don't speak for the Creator do you? So if you don't, I certainly can correct you. You are acting as stupidly and linguistically as koshergirl now. And, yes, you are flatly wrong about We the People somehow not amending the Constitution as We the People see fit.