The Supreme Court is pretty unified on what the press is. It is the use of the printing press, or more modern forms of mass media, to spread a message.
No, she’s just a born-again crazy for whom logic takes a backseat. At the earth’s core.
No, this has been said repeatedly: the party that holds 1600 goes second. It has been tradition since before you were born.
Trump on inviting Russia to perform espionage: JK LOL
FTR, the poll leader right after Labor Day has won every time since Truman.
I don’t like that they changed “how stupid are the people of Iowa” into “how stupid are the people of the country”.
“Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America – you will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”
Yeah, then he can come out in native Kenyan garb and kneel publicly on his prayer rug while the FBI storms people’s homes and takes away their guns. :rolleyes:
And the only alternative is to elect Trump? OK, give me a minute, this is kinda tough…
A constitutional amendment is, by definition, constitutional. So if the proposed amendment (and I’m not saying I love the wording of any of those on the table) says that limits on campaign contributions are not an abridgment of free speech: they’re not.
Why give her that much credit? There’s obviously people who are attracted to this sort of message – it’s perfectly logical that Coulter is just another hateful racist who finally feels free to let loose without much repercussion due to today’s political climate. No reason to pretend that she’s “just faking”. After all, the people eating up her message aren’t faking it.
Not that I disagree with you, but where has this been said repeatedly?
Why don’t they just offer an amendment that says “Money is not speech” …?
The Constitution already gives the Congress authority to regulate the time, place and manner of elections.
People often say that Donald Trump says the things out loud that they are thinking but don’t dare say. I have definitely not found that to be true for me about Trump; however, I now realize that for me, Bill Maher is that guy. When he said “wow, Katy Perry’s tits really are that big” I lost it.
I didn’t say it wasn’t unconstitutional, I said it was self-nullifying. A better way to sum up the proposed amendment:
Congress may regulate political speech, except for that political speech which is covered by freedom of the press. Which is all political speech.
Now if Congress wants to give THE MEDIA special rights by constitutional amendment, they can do that. And that’s clearly sort of what they are going for, but they don’t want to make it so explicit because then you get into areas of who is and isn’t a journalist or opinion writer, and even worse you then get into whether you can censor Michael Moore. So they necessarily made it gobbledygook. That’s why it’s a political stance and not a real amendment. An amendment would take a lot more thought than they’ve given it.
Because printing presses and books and flyers and movies cost money to make, so you basically repeal freedom of the press.
If you’re referring only to donations, then money is already not speech. Donation of money can be restricted and is restricted. Soft money was banned in 2001 and is still illegal. Hard money is limited to what, $2000?
But you can use your own money to buy ad time, or pool ad money from many other people, and Congress can’t touch that.
Elections, yes, but not campaigns. THe election is one day.
Better Late Than Never: I Found It!!!
It was a Retweet… which explains how it could show up while Hillary was speaking and why it was so very hard to find afterward.
It feels nice to be vindicated. 
Science: its the long hard work behind the scenes that makes it great…
This is one opinion. It’s one on which four members of the supreme court disagreed, and if the case is reconsidered (or a similar case considered) with a slightly different court composition, it’s one that will no longer have legal sway.
The alternative arguments include the fact that money can buy a loud megaphone, and when the use of money to buy a bigger megaphone is unlimited, those with the most money can effectively drown out everyone else, which limits the free speech of those without money. It includes the argument that as long as regulation of ads is viewpoint-neutral–that is, political ads are regulated without regard to the specific political position they take–the limit on free speech is minimal, and the benefit to free political speech is much greater.
So yeah, you’re putting forth one view. But it’s hardly the only view among constitutional scholars or on the Supreme Court, and it’s most certainly not a view that’s as self-evident as you’re implying.
Just another example of an “analyst” unable to bring anything new or original to the discussion!