Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

[jillian]

It shouldn't have needed amending. Corporations aren't people for purposes of the first amendment... well, they weren't..

but where are all those "originalist" pretend constitutionalists complaining about it?

It's not a complaint, it's voice. Just like the Union's and PAC's have voice. There is also my Constitutional Right to hear, and decide for myself. Truth is Truth, no matter the source, and we each have a right to hear relevant information in determining what our positions are. It is not for you to censor, what I want or need to hear. Nor is it for me to control what information reaches you.

no... when a union, which is comprised of MEMBERS... and has far more limited resources than multinational corporations, give money, they are required to account for it.

it is not about "voices", it is about "voices" that are constitutionally protected. But for the fact that the right likes the fact that all opposing voices are getting drowned out by the constant din of corporate propaganda, the "constitutionalists" should be besides themselves over Citizens United. It is the worst example of judicial activism I have ever seen.... allowing limitless sums of money from foreign corporations to saturate our political system.

 

[The Rabbi]

It shouldn't have needed amending. Corporations aren't people for purposes of the first amendment... well, they weren't..

but where are all those "originalist" pretend constitutionalists complaining about it?

It's not a complaint, it's voice. Just like the Union's and PAC's have voice. There is also my Constitutional Right to hear, and decide for myself. Truth is Truth, no matter the source, and we each have a right to hear relevant information in determining what our positions are. It is not for you to censor, what I want or need to hear. Nor is it for me to control what information reaches you.

no... when a union, which is comprised of MEMBERS... and has far more limited resources than multinational corporations, give money, they are required to account for it.

it is not about "voices", it is about "voices" that are constitutionally protected. But for the fact that the right likes the fact that all opposing voices are getting drowned out by the constant din of corporate propaganda, the "constitutionalists" should be besides themselves over Citizens United. It is the worst example of judicial activism I have ever seen.... allowing limitless sums of money from foreign corporations to saturate our political system.

And a corporation is comprised of, what? Turkey sandwiches?
There is no reason to differentiate the rights of unions from that of corporations. They are legally identical.

But for the fact that the right likes the fact that all opposing voices are getting drowned out by the constant din of corporate propaganda, the "constitutionalists" should be besides themselves over Citizens United.

Reading that makes me question whether you actually have a college education. Can anyone explain what this actually means? I mean, other than "right wing people are idiots and hypocrites".
Citizens United was a landmark case in 1A, affirming the rights of citizens to political speech. It is exactly what the Left would have supported in the 1960s, when they actually cared of freedoms.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The Democrats: The American people are to stupid to vote with too many advertisements confusing and misleading them, we have to limit the amount of advertising they can watch to protect them from their own stupidity.

^^^ Stupid elitists. As soon as I heard that this was the platform dems were running on in 2010, I knew they'd get their asses handed to them last election.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Democrats: The American people are to stupid to vote with too many advertisements confusing and misleading them, we have to limit the amount of advertising they can watch to protect them from their own stupidity.

^^^ Stupid elitists. As soon as I heard that this was...

Hope vs Doom and Gloom

Democrats speak of a choice “between national greatness and national decline.”

Liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy declared that we would go to the moon. Conservative Republican Chris Christie tells us that we are incapable of building a railroad tunnel beneath the Hudson River.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

You can't Amend the Constitution with something that's Unconstitutional. You need to think about this a bit more before committing so strongly.

 

[California Girl]

I find it funny that y'all debate shit that's from the HuffPuff. Anyone got a legitimate source for this or is it a poll from the HP?

Funny shit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You can't Amend the Constitution with something that's Unconstitutional. You need to think about this a bit more before committing so strongly.

Nothing has been declared un-constitutional.

Corporations are not people, they do not vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can't Amend the Constitution with something that's Unconstitutional. You need to think about this a bit more before committing so strongly.

Nothing has been declared un-constitutional.

Corporations are not people, they do not vote.

Children don't vote either. I guess they aren't people.

 

[antagon]

You can't Amend the Constitution with something that's Unconstitutional. You need to think about this a bit more before committing so strongly.

this is the stupidest shit i have read in fucking weeks. gaad daaamn!

xmas comes early for libox...

just your size.

 

[snjmom]

Do corporations have no private property rights either, crone?

Can you just walk into an Apple store and stick an iPhone in your fanny pack?

Why should government tell anyone who can and can't buy advertising?

Property rights are the ONLY rights corporations have. And they exist at the mercy of the state.

 

[jillian]

You can't Amend the Constitution with something that's Unconstitutional. You need to think about this a bit more before committing so strongly.

no.. *you* need to think about this a bit more. If it becomes part of the constitution, by amendment or otherwise, it is by definition, constitutional.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Like arguing with autistic chimps. This will not happen. I understand that hating the "Evil Corporations" is all the rage and especially with the HuffPo winger crowd,but they do have rights. They're a Lobbying group just like any other Lobbyist group. Free Speech rights trump all. You have the right and freedom to not vote for any candidate who receives money from Corporations. Just put up a candidate who doesn't take Corporate cash. It really is that simple. There is no need to Amend the Constitution.

 

[goldcatt]

Like arguing with autistic chimps. This will not happen. I understand that hating the "Evil Corporations" is all the rage and especially with the HuffPo winger crowd,but they do have rights. They're a Lobbying group just like any other Lobbyist group. Free Speech rights trump all. You have the right and freedom to not vote for any candidate who receives money from Corporations. Just put up a candidate who doesn't take Corporate cash. It really is that simple. There is no need to Amend the Constitution.

A corporation is not a lobbyist group. It is not defined "by the media" as a corporation. It is not a group of individuals freely associating in order to exercise their speech rights. And oh yeah, when you amend the constitution? That amendment is automatically PART of the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Duh.

The amount of sheer ignorance and fail in this thread so far is astounding. Explains a lot, but still astounding.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Like arguing with autistic chimps. This will not happen. I understand that hating the "Evil Corporations" is all the rage and especially with the HuffPo winger crowd,but they do have rights. They're a Lobbying group just like any other Lobbyist group. Free Speech rights trump all. You have the right and freedom to not vote for any candidate who receives money from Corporations. Just put up a candidate who doesn't take Corporate cash. It really is that simple. There is no need to Amend the Constitution.

A corporation is not a lobbyist group. It is not defined "by the media" as a corporation. It is not a group of individuals freely associating in order to exercise their speech rights. And oh yeah, when you amend the constitution? That amendment is automatically PART of the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Duh.

The amount of sheer ignorance and fail in this thread so far is astounding. Explains a lot, but still astounding.

lol! When what you're proposing is Unconstitutional,obviously it wont be added to the Constitution. Duh. This isn't going to happen. Free Speech trumps all in the end. Your rights are not being violated in any way. No one forces you to vote for any candidate who receives Corporate money. The choice is all yours on that. You don't get to punish a group by Amending the Constitution just because you don't like them. That's not how it works.

 

[goldcatt]

Do corporations have no private property rights either, crone?

Can you just walk into an Apple store and stick an iPhone in your fanny pack?

Why should government tell anyone who can and can't buy advertising?

Property rights are the ONLY rights corporations have. And they exist at the mercy of the state.

Not entirely true. Corporations for a very long time had a limited form of speech protection in keeping with their nature and goals. Commercial speech was recognized as protected speech in order to allow corporations to function for their sole, commercial, purpose.

Like everything else dealing with corporations, it was a practical and necessary legal fiction to keep the benefits of the corporation but not jump the abyss into the absurd of granting them the political rights of individuals with none of the accountability.

*sigh*

 

[goldcatt]

Like arguing with autistic chimps. This will not happen. I understand that hating the "Evil Corporations" is all the rage and especially with the HuffPo winger crowd,but they do have rights. They're a Lobbying group just like any other Lobbyist group. Free Speech rights trump all. You have the right and freedom to not vote for any candidate who receives money from Corporations. Just put up a candidate who doesn't take Corporate cash. It really is that simple. There is no need to Amend the Constitution.

A corporation is not a lobbyist group. It is not defined "by the media" as a corporation. It is not a group of individuals freely associating in order to exercise their speech rights. And oh yeah, when you amend the constitution? That amendment is automatically PART of the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Duh.

The amount of sheer ignorance and fail in this thread so far is astounding. Explains a lot, but still astounding.

lol! When what you're proposing is Unconstitutional,obviously it wont be added to the Constitution. Duh. This isn't going to happen. Free Speech trumps all in the end. Your rights are not being violated in any way. No one forces you to vote for any candidate who receives Corporate money. The choice is all yours on that. You don't get to punish a group by Amending the Constitution just because you don't like them. That's not how it works.

If you can push it through the process you can amend the constitution to say anything you want. And guess what? That Amendment becomes part of the constitution. There are no limits. There are no restrictions. Which is why it's a damn good thing it's so hard to do.

The constitution in whole or part cannot, is not and can never be unconstitutional. How can it violate itself?

Congratulations on making the dumbest post I've ever seen, bar none. Holy shit!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

A corporation is not a lobbyist group. It is not defined "by the media" as a corporation. It is not a group of individuals freely associating in order to exercise their speech rights. And oh yeah, when you amend the constitution? That amendment is automatically PART of the constitution. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Duh.

The amount of sheer ignorance and fail in this thread so far is astounding. Explains a lot, but still astounding.

lol! When what you're proposing is Unconstitutional,obviously it wont be added to the Constitution. Duh. This isn't going to happen. Free Speech trumps all in the end. Your rights are not being violated in any way. No one forces you to vote for any candidate who receives Corporate money. The choice is all yours on that. You don't get to punish a group by Amending the Constitution just because you don't like them. That's not how it works.

If you can push it through the process you can amend the constitution to say anything you want. And guess what? That Amendment becomes part of the constitution. There are no limits. There are no restrictions. Which is why it's a damn good thing it's so hard to do.

The constitution in whole or part cannot, is not and can never be unconstitutional. How can it violate itself?

Congratulations on making the dumbest post I've ever seen, bar none. Holy shit!

Yea good luck with all that. What you wingers are proposing is both ignorant and Unconstitutional. So obviously you wont be Amending shit. It's just your HuffPo winger wet dream. You don't get to silence a group of people by Amending the Constitution just because you don't like them. Seriously,lay off the HuffPo and MSLSD. SHEESH!

 

[goldcatt]

lol! When what you're proposing is Unconstitutional,obviously it wont be added to the Constitution. Duh. This isn't going to happen. Free Speech trumps all in the end. Your rights are not being violated in any way. No one forces you to vote for any candidate who receives Corporate money. The choice is all yours on that. You don't get to punish a group by Amending the Constitution just because you don't like them. That's not how it works.

If you can push it through the process you can amend the constitution to say anything you want. And guess what? That Amendment becomes part of the constitution. There are no limits. There are no restrictions. Which is why it's a damn good thing it's so hard to do.

The constitution in whole or part cannot, is not and can never be unconstitutional. How can it violate itself?

Congratulations on making the dumbest post I've ever seen, bar none. Holy shit!

Yea good luck with all that. What you wingers are proposing is both ignorant and Unconstitutional. So obviously you wont be Amending shit. It's just your HuffPo winger wet dream. You don't get to silence a group of people by Amending the Constitution just because you don't like them. Seriously,lay off the HuffPo and MSLSD. SHEESH!

Who's proposed anything? A poll says the majority of Americans want it done. Which may mean a lot or a little depending on the poll's questions and methodology. Nothing has been proposed. Once again, you fail.

I'm going to spell this out for you very slowly and clearly, maybe you'll get it.

EVERY constitutional amendment is unconstitutional at the time it is proposed. Why? Because if it were already in the constitution, the constitution would not need to be amended to add it. Duh.

The wisdom of the proposed amendment, if one is actually proposed, will be debated and the measure will have to go through the steps of the amendment process to pass. And that process is very difficult for a reason.

Careful with that foam dripping from your fangs, you're letting your hate poison that last brain cell.

 

[goldcatt]

Re-read the OP and apparently something has, in fact, been proposed. This is the first I'd heard of it, and I watch these things pretty closely. But I missed that one. My bad.

Doesn't change the fact that Libo's an idiot though.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If you can push it through the process you can amend the constitution to say anything you want. And guess what? That Amendment becomes part of the constitution. There are no limits. There are no restrictions. Which is why it's a damn good thing it's so hard to do.

The constitution in whole or part cannot, is not and can never be unconstitutional. How can it violate itself?

Congratulations on making the dumbest post I've ever seen, bar none. Holy shit!

Yea good luck with all that. What you wingers are proposing is both ignorant and Unconstitutional. So obviously you wont be Amending shit. It's just your HuffPo winger wet dream. You don't get to silence a group of people by Amending the Constitution just because you don't like them. Seriously,lay off the HuffPo and MSLSD. SHEESH!

Who's proposed anything? A poll says the majority of Americans want it done. Which may mean a lot or a little depending on the poll's questions and methodology. Nothing has been proposed. Once again, you fail.

I'm going to spell this out for you very slowly and clearly, maybe you'll get it.

EVERY constitutional amendment is unconstitutional at the time it is proposed. Why? Because if it were already in the constitution, the constitution would not need to be amended to add it. Duh.

The wisdom of the proposed amendment, if one is actually proposed, will be debated and the measure will have to go through the steps of the amendment process to pass. And that process is very difficult for a reason.

Careful with that foam dripping from your fangs, you're letting your hate poison that last brain cell.

Uh huh. Nice spin. You can't take away others' rights so you can supposedly have more. There are a lot of groups out there i would like to see banned from being part of the political process but i wont propose banning them by amending the Constitution. It's just a stupid concept dreamt up by hysterical HuffPo & MSLSD wingers. Your argument can't even stand up in court let alone Amend the Constitution. No one forces anyone in this country to vote for any candidate who receives Corporate money. This is just fact. So stop all the winger hysterics and lay off HuffPo. She's a friggin dunce for God's sake.