Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

[Utility Man]

Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

Monday, 07 Oct 2013 06:34 AM
By Elliot Jager

...It's not every day a U.S. senator pleads his case before the Supreme Court, but Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader from Kentucky, is scheduled to do just that for ten minutes Tuesday morning....

...So far the court has distinguished between types of contributors ostensibly to block individuals from overtly buying political favors. Under current law, a citizen can contribute up to $48,600 to all federal candidates combined during an election cycle.....


Read more here:

Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court
​

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
​

Looks like Mitch might want to sell himself to the highest bidder.

I have to wonder what it would be like to own a politician.

What do you all think about individuals being able to buy a politician ?

Thoughts or comments ?

 

[francois60]

I think it's very unlikely he'll win this one, and the journalist who wrote the article isn't too bright, suggesting that the court is likely to overturn this one just because it overturned other limits. The other limits were on people spending their own money for their own purposes, not donating money directly to a candidate. Huge difference.

 

[winston53660]

If I could buy a politician I would enforce a dress code on my employee:



just to be an ass

 

[Linc]

This is "Son of Citizens United". It has a great chance to win.
McConnell is a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.
This win would seal his reelection.

 

[francois60]

I don't think it will win, since giving money to someone else is not speech. Using money to buy an ad is speech.

 

[Moot]

I think the SCOTUS pretty much determined that money speaks louder than words and qualifies as free speech with their ruling on Citizens United.

Nimby is right, McConnell is not a stupid man and he stands a good chance of winning his case simply because of who is on the court.

 

[ChezC3]

Number one, like I've said before, I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one. Number two, Citizens United is horrible because it commodified speech. It literally put a price on FREE speech. Also, anyone can say anything, but those who pay and pay handsomely will be heard.

Another reason to despise the cretin from Kentucky...

 

[Moot]

Number one. like I've said before, I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one. Number two, Citizens United is horrible because it commodified speech. It literally put a price on FREE speech. Anyone can say anything, but those who pay and pay handsomely will be heard.

Another reason to despise the cretin from Kentucky...

lol wow, I actually agree with you on both points. I loved your line...."I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one"

 

[ChezC3]

lol wow, I actually agree with you on both points. I loved your line...."I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one"

See? I'm quite agreeable when you agree with me...

 

[Kobie]

Number one, like I've said before, I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one. Number two, Citizens United is horrible because it commodified speech. It literally put a price on FREE speech. Also, anyone can say anything, but those who pay and pay handsomely will be heard.

Another reason to despise the cretin from Kentucky...

Hey, knew there was a first time I'd agree with Chez.

 

[francois60]

Speech is speech. The 1st amendment doesn't allow censorship just because the speech is paid for, or paid for by a corporation. if it does, that's news to me, and probably to anyone else who spends maybe two seconds thinking about it.

 

[ChezC3]

Speech is speech. The 1st amendment doesn't allow censorship just because the speech is paid for, or paid for by a corporation. if it does, that's news to me, and probably to anyone else who spends maybe two seconds thinking about it.

So then you're a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated?

 

[francois60]

No. That's interference with the media, something which I'm shocked the government was ever permitted to do. Dark times.

 

[danarhea]

I don't think it will win, since giving money to someone else is not speech. Using money to buy an ad is speech.

Using money to buy an ad allows corporations to create "advocacy ads" on specific issues, which can then be used against a candidate's opponent.

 

[head of joaquin]

I think it's very unlikely he'll win this one, and the journalist who wrote the article isn't too bright, .

Then he got the right advocate in Mitch. A perfect match.

 

[ChezC3]

No. That's interference with the media, something which I'm shocked the government was ever permitted to do. Dark times.

But speech is speech. The constitution doesn't allow for censorship because someone can't afford the microphone.


Let me be clear, I'm against both Citizens United AND The Fairness Doctrine, but if you allow the former the only correct balance is to allow the latter...

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

So then you're a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated?

I agree with francois, that the "Fairness Doctrine" would be government interference. Everybody is allowed their own voice and whatever other constitutionally allowed advantages they may wrangle or achieve, but it is not the right of government to step in and "equalize" everyone, that is not freedom.

Besides which, fairness could never be achieved, one cannot even define "fairness" in light of campaigns...who would determine this fairness...well, I do not have to explain/argue that to you as you have indicated that you are not a fan...

However, the fact that corporations, much like media corporations, would be able to express themselves freely at any time and not be limited, should be assured. That certainly would be more "fair", not government assured but achieved through the effort of groups and individuals. Freedom of assembly is one of our first amendment rights as well, should those we choose to assemble with be shut out of the process? That would just leave the field wide open to others who do, collectively, enjoy that right.

If we shut off these various collections of like minded folks, such as some corporations, private groups and unions...should we then also shut down media 30 or 60 days before an election? We all know media has bias, it comes from humans and therefore simply cannot help it...so if the media can spin things, insert themselves deeply into influencing American public opinion...and they most certainly and obviously do [ remember Her-icane Crowley ], there should be freedom to counter that from the other side or sides...

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Using money to buy an ad allows corporations to create "advocacy ads" on specific issues, which can then be used against a candidate's opponent.

And media allowed to insert itself, to sway public opinion should be un-countered? The mess Candy Crowley created right before the election, the fact that the News Media as a whole ignored, pretty much still ignores, Benghazi when some concerned group could have put together a nice video with facts, with just the right questions that should have been asked, but were ignored, by a media still fawning and salivating over their chosen one... that effort by concerned groups right up to election day should be excluded because...why?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

But speech is speech. The constitution doesn't allow for censorship because someone can't afford the microphone.


Let me be clear, I'm against both Citizens United AND The Fairness Doctrine, but if you allow the former the only correct balance is to allow the latter...

Its not censorship if you cannot afford a microphone, you do not have a "right" to a microphone.

 

[ChezC3]

I agree with francois, that the "Fairness Doctrine" would be government interference. Everybody is allowed their own voice and whatever other constitutionally allowed advantages they may wrangle or achieve, but it is not the right of government to step in and "equalize" everyone, that is not freedom.

Freedom is equality in government, that means everyone having the ability to be heard equally, no just those that can afford the microphone.

Besides which, fairness could never be achieved, one cannot even define "fairness" in light of campaigns...who would determine this fairness...well, I do not have to explain/argue that to you as you have indicated that you are not a fan...

Taking away private funding would solve this.

However, the fact that corporations, much like media corporations, would be able to express themselves freely at any time and not be limited, should be assured. That certainly would be more "fair", not government assured but achieved through the effort of groups and individuals. Freedom of assembly is one of our first amendment rights as well, should those we choose to assemble with be shut out of the process? That would just leave the field wide open to others who do, collectively, enjoy that right

If we shut off these various collections of like minded folks, such as some corporations, private groups and unions...should we then also shut down media 30 or 60 days before an election? We all know media has bias, it comes from humans and therefore simply cannot help it...so if the media can spin things, insert themselves deeply into influencing American public opinion...and they most certainly and obviously do [ remember Her-icane Crowley ], there should be freedom to counter that from the other side or sides...

First off let's make sure we're on the same page. There is no Working Class Left versus Corporatist Right. You do know this? There is the two headed behemoth that is Big Government/ Big Business. They might squabble about which head they want to control the body. But it is one body.

No further proof is necessary to show the deception of choice, of freedom in this country than the ability of some self appointed governing body which is a corporation which sets the standards arbitrarily and denies candidate access to public national debates. In 2000 with Ralph Nader and in 2012 with Gary Johnson, two candidates which had the credentials, had the knowledge, and in the latter case had the experience which was heads above any of the 4 corporate approved schmucks who where in those elections.


By allowing for corporate money to be funneled into politics you are perpetuating this travesty. You are feeding the two-headed beast. You are allowing this country, and you yourself to be controlled by the monied class. You are not allowing this government to be one of the people, but of the corporations.


and that is just another thing I can't support.

 

[ChezC3]

Its not censorship if you cannot afford a microphone, you do not have a "right" to a microphone.

You don't have a right to allow your money to silence the opposition either.. Which is what CU does...

 

[Moot]

Freedom is equality in government, that means everyone having the ability to be heard equally, no just those that can afford the microphone.

Taking away private funding would solve this.


First off let's make sure we're on the same page. There is no Working Class Left versus Corporatist Right. You do know this? There is the two headed behemoth that is Big Government/ Big Business. They might squabble about which head they want to control the body. But it is one body.

No further proof is necessary to show the deception of choice, of freedom in this country than the ability of some self appointed governing body which is a corporation which sets the standards arbitrarily and denies candidate access to public national debates. In 2000 with Ralph Nader and in 2012 with Gary Johnson, two candidates which had the credentials, had the knowledge, and in the latter case had the experience which was heads above any of the 4 corporate approved schmucks who where in those elections.


By allowing for corporate money to be funneled into politics you are perpetuating this travesty. You are feeding the two-headed beast. You are allowing this country, and you yourself to be controlled by the monied class. You are not allowing this government to be one of the people, but of the corporations.


and that is just another thing I can't support.

You're starting to scare me...we agree again. "...Two headed behemouth...." Excellent.



You might be interested in this from my local paper.....

Salt Lake City voters say corporations are not people

Mail-in ballots overwhelmingly oppose U.S. Supreme Court ruling on corporations and money in politics.

Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

That’s what Salt Lake City residents say by an overwhelming 90 percent to 10 percent margin, according to a special mail ballot-opinion question. The results were announced Tuesday......

The question that was put to voters was whether they supported these statements: "Only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights; and money is not speech and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."

In favor were 17,229 voters; opposed were 1,990. Another 388 ballots were not counted for a variety of reasons.....

The Salt Lake organization is part of a national Move to Amend campaign active in about 90 cities and dedicated to undoing the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate and union spending on federal and state elections.

According to Larsen, the Move to Amend movement is meeting with success across the country and will, at some unspecified time, seek to amend the U.S. Constitution.....read...."

Salt Lake City voters say corporations are not people | The Salt Lake Tribune

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

You don't have a right to allow your money to silence the opposition either.. Which is what CU does...

I will get back to the other post when I get a chance, as I certainly do not agree with what you have laid down as being an accurate assessment of how the way things are versus how they "should" be.

But here, how is one's money silencing the other's money? This would be more akin to a civil court case wherein one side is allowed to keep its attorney to make its closing arguments in the case, the other side must drop its attorney, or perhaps never even having that attorney in the first place, at the crucial end and just be silent hoping the jury was paying close attention to detail all along and summing the arguments up properly.

But do tell, how is one side, both sides actually, being able to present its case silencing and preventing the other side?

 

[American]

Then he got the right advocate in Mitch. A perfect match.

You're talking bull**** again as usual, totally unsubstantiated. This is the usual meme.

 

[ChezC3]

I will get back to the other post when I get a chance, as I certainly do not agree with what you have laid down as being an accurate assessment of how the way things are versus how they "should" be.

But here, how is one's money silencing the other's money? This would be more akin to a civil court case wherein one side is allowed to keep its attorney to make its closing arguments in the case, the other side must drop its attorney, or perhaps never even having that attorney in the first place, at the crucial end and just be silent hoping the jury was paying close attention to detail all along and summing the arguments up properly.

But do tell, how is one side, both sides actually, being able to present its case silencing and preventing the other side?

What happens when demand exceeds supply? Prices rise. It means only those with the largest bankroll will be heard.

How the hell do you think people win elections? By having more money to get their name and message out there. I don't have any statistics, and heck I'm not even sure I'm right, but tell you what, see if you can do a little digging and tell me when was the last time someone won national office and had less money than the other guy.

That's all politics is nowadays. Who has the most money, not who is the best person for the job. And no it doesn't always equate to he with the most money has the most support, only the most supporters with the biggest check books.