Hillary calls for First Amendment o be repealed: Dems cheer!

[jonny5]

it wasn't about people showing videos of Hillary - it was about corporations showing videos of Hillary.

the real hypocrisy is for decades, trade unions were doing that very thing.

Corporations are groups of people. It seems like youre saying that one person can speak, but two people together cant? Like say BLM. Each individual can speak their mind, but they shouldnt be allowed to hold a banner with their message?

 

[ARealConservative]

Corporations are groups of people. It seems like youre saying that one person can speak, but two people together cant? Like say BLM. Each individual can speak their mind, but they shouldnt be allowed to buy hold a banner?

corporations are groups of people that petitioned government for special treatment.

all corporations are groups, not all groups are corporations.

 

[DA60]

To balance the budget will take far more than cutting spending.

No it won't...simple mathematics should tell you that.

 

[jonny5]

Good luck with that. Repealing CU wont stop that.

It would give the govt cover to try.

 

[BitterPill]

corporations are groups of people that petitioned government for special treatment.

all corporations are groups, not all groups are corporations.

A corporation is a fictitious persona created to avoid personal liability.

 

[jonny5]

corporations are groups of people that petitioned government for special treatment.

all corporations are groups, not all groups are corporations.

What special treatment? The ability to share property? Why should that limit their speech?

 

[BitterPill]

No it won't...simple mathematics should tell you that.

That's where I got it - used no calculus, trigonometry or algebra at all.

 

[ARealConservative]

A corporation is a fictitious persona created to avoid personal liability.

right. but individuals don't lose their rights by creating a fictitious persona created to avoid personal liability.

 

[jonny5]

A corporation is a fictitious persona created to avoid personal liability.

Its literally a legally defined group, and nothing more. CU is a PAC, not a commercial entity.

 

[BitterPill]

right. but individuals don't lose their rights by creating a fictitious persona created to avoid personal liability.

Agreed. In fact, I don't recall anyone saying so, but that's a good point.

 

[jonny5]

I believe that our economy isn’t working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!

Read more at: Citizens United & Hillary Clinton -- Overturning Means Repealing First Amendment | National Review

Of course, we can call a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United by another name: a repeal of the First Amendment. The consequence of Citizens United, that corporations can spend without limit on independent political advocacy, flows directly from the First Amendment guarantees that free speech and association will not be abrogated by the government. A corporation is a legal entity that represents an association of people. People who associate in the form of a corporation do not lose their First Amendment right to free speech — a right which includes spending money to make a commercial, for instance, about the upcoming election. Citizens United affirms this principle in consonance with the First Amendment. A constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United would literally be a constitutional amendment that repeals the First Amendment. Clinton’s promise to do so was an applause line.

To be fair, she only wants to place a legal restriction on the first amendment which would have the same force of law. Thats not a repeal, its a modification.

 

[blaxshep]

Citizens United wasn't about donations. it was about PACS

Me putting up billboards is a very close analogy. It would be a major violation of my rights to not allow me to do so.

You don't have the right to a bigger voice in an election. Your vote is no different than the vote from the guy that lives in a van down by the river. You want you influence to be greater because you can afford it that would be the same thing as saying your number of votes is proportional to your wealth.

 

[blaxshep]

To balance the budget will take far more than cutting spending.

No you just have to cut more than you want to cut.

 

[ARealConservative]

In my opinion, your analogy will only work if money equals speech. I don't think it does.

do we still pretend to be a free society when we say billboards are not allowed to be purchased

 

[blaxshep]

Thats not what you said. You said they werent citizens/people. The idea that an association of people has the same freedom of speech as an individual is a separate idea. And it seems pretty obvious they do given there is no such limitation in the law.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

The first amendment applies to the people corporations are not people.

 

[blaxshep]

A corporation is a fictitious persona created to avoid personal liability.

Exactly.

 

[blaxshep]

do we still pretend to be a free society when we say billboards are not allowed to be purchased

To influence elections by private citizens, yes. You have one vote, that's all you get.

 

[ARealConservative]

You don't have the right to a bigger voice in an election. Your vote is no different than the vote from the guy that lives in a van down by the river. You want you influence to be greater because you can afford it that would be the same thing as saying your number of votes is proportional to your wealth.

Time, talent, and treasure are at play.

So why limit my influence to just treasure?

Why not limit the amount of time I spend talking too? Isnt’ that the next progression? I can afford to work less, so I can spend more time talking up my guy. More time talking means I have a greater voice.

Some guys are more effective communicators. This gives them a bigger voice too. So how do we limit their talent so they don’t have a bigger voice in this election?

 

[JackA]

I believe that our economy isn’t working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!

Read more at: Citizens United & Hillary Clinton -- Overturning Means Repealing First Amendment | National Review

Of course, we can call a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United by another name: a repeal of the First Amendment. The consequence of Citizens United, that corporations can spend without limit on independent political advocacy, flows directly from the First Amendment guarantees that free speech and association will not be abrogated by the government. A corporation is a legal entity that represents an association of people. People who associate in the form of a corporation do not lose their First Amendment right to free speech — a right which includes spending money to make a commercial, for instance, about the upcoming election. Citizens United affirms this principle in consonance with the First Amendment. A constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United would literally be a constitutional amendment that repeals the First Amendment. Clinton’s promise to do so was an applause line.

Another expression of the wild overreaching that plagues the Right.

1. The First Amendment wasn't born with the decision in Citizens United. Until that recent case it always was Constitutionally permissible to restrict corporate money in political campaigns and
freedom of speech did just fine. In fact, it did better than it has since.

2. A corporation is not a "person". In fact, corporations are created in order to avoid the consequences that the law places on persons. The Court invented the legal fiction of
corporate personhood and the Court can uninvent that creation, and the First Amendment would be the better for it.

 

[Ikari]

right. but individuals don't lose their rights by creating a fictitious persona created to avoid personal liability.

Certainly not. The individual is free and possesses rights, the corporation does not. Corporations are a thing, we've granted them certain legal privilege to make litigation/contract a bit easier. Some of these privileges mimic rights an individual possesses, but it is impossible for a corporation to possess rights.

 

[blaxshep]

Time, talent, and treasure are at play.

So why limit my influence to just treasure?

Why not limit the amount of time I spend talking too? Isnt’ that the next progression? I can afford to work less, so I can spend more time talking up my guy. More time talking means I have a greater voice.

Some guys are more effective communicators. This gives them a bigger voice too. So how do we limit their talent so they don’t have a bigger voice in this election?

Talk all you want, that is your guaranteed right, effecting elections with undue influence because your rich and think you are entitled to a bigger voice, not so much.

 

[ARealConservative]

Talk all you want, that is your guaranteed right, effecting elections with undue influence because your rich and think you are entitled to a bigger voice, not so much.

wow, weak response

paying for political billboards is also my right.

 

[blaxshep]

Certainly not. The individual is free and possesses rights, the corporation does not. Corporations are a thing, we've granted them certain legal privilege to make litigation/contract a bit easier. Some of these privileges mimic rights an individual possesses, but it is impossible for a corporation to possess rights.

In fact we wouldn't need regulations is LLC were illegal. If CEO and Corporate board members could be sued for their personal assets we wouldn't need the EPA, FDA OSHA etc.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Citizens United wasn't about donations. it was about PACS

There's very little difference. In an FEC that's exactly half controlled by the DNC and the RNC, with a tie resulting in no action, it's impossible to enforce the difference. As such, Hillary basically openly orchestrated with some of her super PACs (e.g. the Orwellianly titled "Set the Record").

Me putting up billboards is a very close analogy. It would be a major violation of my rights to not allow me to do so.

Firstly, depends on what you're saying. You can't put up a billboard "There's a massive fire in this town, LEAVE NOW!" That's not protected by free speech. You can put up certain political issues, but they should be limited if they discuss candidates.

Secondly, a corporation should not have rights in the political process. No one is arguing that a corporation, as a person, has a right to vote, for instance. Corporate personhood exists as a legal fiction and book-keeping measure for contracts and assets. I think that these lack of rights should clearly extend to the full democratic process. Mind you, it's absurd to pretend like corporations are national institutions. Globalization has totally destroyed that idea, many/most so-called American corporations are owned and/or controlled by foreign nationals. We're not okay with their CEO being capable of voting, but we're totally okay if the corporate entity run by that foreign CEO can shovel as much money as they want into our elections? That makes zero sense.

 

[WCH]

Apples to oranges. Corporations are not a citizen, never were, never will be. I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas hangs one.

Ummm.... we mix them a cocktail.