• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you Support the McGovern amendments? (money isnt free speech amendment)

Do you support the McGovern amendments?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 20 62.5%

  • No

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • Total voters
    32
TheDemSocialist said:
You said speech and expression are not the same. The definition of expression includes speech!
Click to expand...
They are not the same. Speech is something that has to be in words.Expression does not have have to be in words.
 
jamesrage said:
That definition does not back up what you say.If you were talking about writing or talking about flag burning then you would be correct. Articulating something in words and burning something are two different things.
Click to expand...

I agree, to me flag burning is an action, not speech.
 
The amendments are nothing more than attempts to limit and ration free political speech. They should be opposed.
 
Can't help but remember President Eisenhower's warning -

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
 
jamesrage said:
They are not the same. Speech is something that has to be in words.Expression does not have have to be in words.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
But just about every constitutional scholar agrees that expression is covered under the first amendment.

Also yet again you fail to comment or answer any of the other points or questions i have posted.
 
Regarless of the constitutionality of money as speech, I am convinced that allowing money to influence politics is not condusive to a democratic society. If it is decided that the constition allows unlimited contributions to the political process then the influence of that money will destroy the value of my vote. It will create a condition of "wealth is right" just like the old saying "might is right."

Yes this is not on the same side of the arguement as my last posting. Showing my true centrist ideals, I have contradictory feelings about this issue.
 

Money is the necessary counterweight to government and media power. Attempts to limit money in politics are attempts to ration and limit political speech.eace
 
Jack Hays said:
Money is the necessary counterweight to government and media power. Attempts to limit money in politics are attempts to ration and limit political speech.eace
Click to expand...

Voting is the necessary counterweight to government power, not money. Media power is the means (currently) through which money exerts its power. Money in politics is not necessary. The freedom to say what you want is necessary. Allowing money to dictate whos voice gets out is not democratic in any way.
 

Money permits those not favored by the government or media to make their voices heard. It is a bulwark of free politics.
 
Jack Hays said:
Money permits those not favored by the government or media to make their voices heard. It is a bulwark of free politics.
Click to expand...

What permits those without millions of dollars, and not favored by the government or media, to make their voices heard?

Americas democracy is based on a system of checks and balances. What is the check and balance on huge monetary contributions exerting its will on the government or the media?
 

The "huge monetary contributions" are found across the political spectrum and ensure that no faction can monopolize the debate.
 
Jack Hays said:
The "huge monetary contributions" are found across the political spectrum and ensure that no faction can monopolize the debate.
Click to expand...

I am not Democrat or Republican. There has never been $100 million spent to support my point of view. Apparently your last statement is wrong.
 
I should say that this is why I disagree with your statement rather than the contentious "statement is wrong."

By the way, has been the most pleasant exchange I have had while disagreeing with someone on this site. Cheers to your ability to avoid name calling and other less than intelligent discussion strategies.
 
Slateriesling said:
I am not Democrat or Republican. There has never been $100 million spent to support my point of view. Apparently your last statement is wrong.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your point of view has not been lavishly funded, but the fact that money has kept alternative points of view in play has created political open space for your point of view.
 

Thank you. Same to you.eace
 
No. People have just as much freedom of speech when they do so as groups as when they do so as individuals. To strip away the right of groups of people to lobby is A) to wrongfully deny them the ability to petition their government and B) to place power even more overwhelmingly in the hands of wealthy individuals.




But I continue to be amused by the people who don't think through the consequences of their actions, and just rant against lobbying. Who Knew TheDemSocialist would want to put a greater concentration of power in the hands of the billionaires? :lol:
 
Slateriesling said:
Voting is the necessary counterweight to government power, not money.
Click to expand...

If that was accurate, then we wouldn't have money in politics in the first place.

Media power is the means (currently) through which money exerts its power.
Click to expand...

Yes. And one of the major ways in which it does so IS....... it effects voting

Money in politics is not necessary. The freedom to say what you want is necessary.
Click to expand...

Yes, and how do you intend to tell your congresscritter what you want without spending resources? How do you intend to organize your neighbors to do so? Are you going to use magic?
 
Is it right that so-called free speech should have such a high cost ?..
 
earthworm said:
Is it right that so-called free speech should have such a high cost ?..
Click to expand...



The only thing free on this planet is the air. And it's not always worth the price.



"Free Beer (Tomorrow.)." ~ Sign in tavern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…