Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United?

[adaher]

If the intent of congress is to change the nature of press rights, they also have to be specific about their amendment superseding the equal protection clause, because it would be treating press rights as government-granted rights to a privileged class.

Otherwise, courts can just toss it based on it contradicting the 14th amendment.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

At which point it'd go to Court again. If the court interprets Section 2 of the proposed amendment as superseding Section 4 in allowing unlimited electioneering communications (which I can't think of any reason for them to do other than partisanship), then a new amendment would have to be crafted.

Why are corporations that own the media perfectly angelic, but corporations that rent it in 30 second intervals evil?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Why are corporations that own the media perfectly angelic, but corporations that rent it in 30 second intervals evil?

They aren't. The people choose to watch the channels and there are public alternatives. I don't think very highly of the alternatives, but they exist. Advertising, on the other hand, is foisted on the viewer and the polls suggest they aren't very happy about it (they're willing to give up watching ads for candidates they like in order to not be inundated by ads for candidates they don't). The alternate applies for me also. I'm willing to sit through one BNP ad secure in the knowledge that public funding is a better option than being inundated by adverts for each party.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

They aren't. The people choose to watch the channels and there are public alternatives. I don't think very highly of the alternatives, but they exist. Advertising, on the other hand, is foisted on the viewer and the polls suggest they aren't very happy about it (they're willing to give up watching ads for candidates they like in order to not be inundated by ads for candidates they don't). The alternate applies for me also. I'm willing to sit through one BNP ad secure in the knowledge that public funding is a better option than being inundated by adverts for each party.

Sigh.

It is not your place to decide that one kind of speech isn't as good as another. It's not your place to decide that one kind is "foisted" on anyone. It's not your place to substitute your judgement for that of others.

Butt the hell out of other people's business. They will decide what to watch and what to think of it. It's none of your damn business.

[adaher]

I actually think his point about the difference between TV advertising and other forms of electioneering is valid, but it would apply to all advertising. The federal government has long been recognized to have control over the airwaves and gets a lot of deference. The problem Anthony Kennedy had in his majority opinion was that BCRA divided speakers into favored and disfavored. If you were to ban ALL campaign advertising on the airwaves, I suspect it would hold up.

But given Charlie Rangel's angry grilling of TiVO's CEO, I think most politicians would rather just endure the 3rd party barrage rather than surrender the incumbency advantage they enjoy on the airwaves.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Butt the hell out of other people's business. They will decide what to watch and what to think of it. It's none of your damn business.

Brotip: This is a message board and I'm well within the rules of posting here. People have decided they don't like campaign ads. I agree with them. The Supreme Court says too bad. Senators have proposed a fix.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Brotip: This is a message board and I'm well within the rules of posting here. People have decided they don't like campaign ads. I agree with them. The Supreme Court says too bad. Senators have proposed a fix.

And the U.S. Constitution says you don't get to enact your opinion into law.

I was just speaking to you on behalf of the authors of the First Amendment, that's all.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I was just speaking to you on behalf of the authors of the First Amendment, that's all.

Cool. Could you tell me Bertrand Russell's opinion on the iPhone?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Cool. Could you tell me Bertrand Russell's opinion on the iPhone?

Should every generation completely rewrite its laws and Constitution simply because it wasn't around to approve of them?

As for the iPhone reference - do you also think "freedom of the press" means that only people using a Gutenberg moveable type hand-operated press have that right? It doesn't apply to TV and radio?

Oh, and is speech on a phone not protected because phones are not people?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Should every generation completely rewrite its laws and Constitution simply because it wasn't around to approve of them?

If a sizeable majority do not endorse such laws. I'm not a federalist, remember. Do you oppose any amendment to the constitution which hampers the unfettered power of private concentrations of capital?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

If a sizeable majority do not endorse such laws.

So we should, what, put the entire Constitution to a vote every 20 years or so?

I'm not a federalist, remember.

What does that mean, you're not a federalist?

I am under the impression that you're not an American, is that correct? If not, that might explain some of the misunderstandings of terms and values between us.

Do you oppose any amendment to the constitution which hampers the unfettered power of private concentrations of capital?

Not at all. I support all kinds of laws that limit corporations.