Who says these are “reasonable” alterations? You? Are you trying to restrict everyone’s speech or just those you diagree with? Should NBC/MSNBC or ABC or FOX be allowed to throw softball questions to their candidate of choice and grill the opposition mercilessly? Media corporation should be allowed to support their candidates but those “other” coprorations shouldn’t be allowed to support any candidate. You can put a sign in your yard but a collection of pipefitters (aka a union) shouldn’t be allowed to put a sign on their property? Where do you draw the line?
You can do it but “they” can’t isn’t a “reasonable alteration”.
No. Your question is so vague that it might mean that Scientologists funds used in a publicity campaign to convince everyone that Tom Cruise’s ex-wives are devils would be protected.
This would seem to violate the wall of separation between church and state, another matter entirely.
Once again, very vague, not sure what you mean here. Is money used to buy printing presses for a newspaper protected by the First Amendment?
Nope.
I’m not sure what is meant by “protected.” I believe the government has no business interjecting itself between a woman and her doctor in such decisions. I would believe that Roe v. Wade or not.
This actually sounds like a good idea … the law is WAAAAAY skewed toward the rich as things are. Let me think about it. A public option for legal care as well as health care. This has possibilities!
Well, no, it’s not another matter. It’s money spent on a First Amendment right. It’s exactly the same principle - spending money on a right.
So why can’t the government declare that “money isn’t religion” just like you like to say that “money isn’t speech”?
Yes. Is it?
Why not? Money isn’t the press, just like it isn’t speech. Right?
Why is spending money on ink and paper protected, but not spending it on ads in a paper?
So answer the question. Could the government say that it will not interject itself in such decisions - but at the same time ban spending money on abortion? Would you believe that banning the spending of money on abortion isn’t an interference in the right to have an abortion?
I’m disturbed by that, but not surprised.
First of all, I was talking about criminal representation - in other words, against the state, not rich private interests. The idea of limiting how much money you can spend to defend yourself from prosecution is offensive on so many levels, not just the classic liberal one. I’m disappointed in you.
Aside from the fact that it’s also blatantly unconstitutional too, it’s got the same problem that limits on speech based on “fairness” do - where do you draw the line? Since really poor people have effectively zero money to spend on speech, or legal representation, you’d have to set the cap at zero. After all, any time one side spends more, it’s unfair. Right?
I read some of the original text and some legal commentary. I have to say I understand the issue better after engaging with you in this thread. For instance, I think BCRA was pointless, given the Buckley v. Valeo precedent. Congress should have pushed for a constitutional amendment or court prohibition instead. Limits on individual expenditure on campaigns were held to be unconstitutional (thus collective, thus corporations), under strict or vague interpretation of FECA - 608(e). Your position isn’t so much that corporations are not partisan, it’s that any restrictions constitute a thread to our liberty. However, I cannot think of any limitations of corporate advocacy and I hold such advocacy to be both effective and antithetical to a democratic system. Nor can I simultaneously hold the premise that limitations on electioneering communications are unconstitutional while donations to campaigns are constitutional, since the expenditures are equivocal.
According to about half the precedent of the Supreme Court, as opposed to the opinions of Congress and the public.
Now, if you can please read it again, and this thread again, maybe you’ll actually agree with the precedent.
Your holding is not a basis for violating the Constitution though. You would need to amend it. And such an amendment would have consequences far beyond what you seem to understand. It has nothing to do with corporations.
Again, if you feel that way, you must choose unlimited donations.
Which is why we have courts.
You wouldn’t want the people ruling on the Constitution any more than I would.
[quote=lance strongarm]
such an amendment would have consequences far beyond what you seem to understand./quote]
Care to elaborate?
Here is the first section of the most popular amendment out there (“Move to Amend”):
This abolishes the free speech rights of political parties, churches, and any political interest group like the AARP, NRA, ACLU, etc. - including the very groups trying to get it passed. It could also abolish all speech rights for anyone who used a group or corporation to espouse their views, such as through a film. Micheal Moore may have speech rights, but his distribution company wouldn’t because it’s not a person.
You can’t choose limits on speech. If you’re saying donations are speech, so be it.
Political parties are not established by laws of the states or foreign states, nor are churches. Subjecting corporate speech to the law of the ruling party is a principle extant in England, without chilling effects on political discussion.
I’m not even subject to it. I just find it pathetic that a “moderate democrat” would use it as a smokescreen in order to oppress their fellow citizens.
Nice try. Political parties are not people. They are incorporated, in fact. They would not have speech rights under this amendment.
You are the one who has this preposterous idea that you can go around distinguishing between “good” sources of speech and “bad” ones. Now you’re stuck with the fruits of that labor.
If you’re not subject to the U.S. Constitution, that probably explains why you have such little understanding of it, or its principles.
If you’re suggesting that upholding the Bill of Rights is oppressing citizens, then I don’t know what to say.
I cited the amendment. It’s very very clear. It would only give speech rights to natural persons.
Here it is again:
**The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
**
It’s very clear - political parties, interest groups, etc. would have no rights whatsoever.
You just don’t get it, do you?
Do I really have to be painfully specific whenever I talk to you?
The “Central Hudson Test” concerns restrictions on commercial speech (speech that proposes an economic transaction).
If you believe that Congress has the constitutional authority to restrict political free speech, what do you believe are the limits on Congresses authority? Or should there be any? If Congress doesn’t like the way they are treated by the corporations known as media outlets, should Congress be able to forbid NBC/MSNBC and FOX from ever mentioning a Senators name? Or just forbid them from mentioning any scandel or skullduggery a Congressman might be involved in?
Yes. So what? Doesn’t change my point. Political parties are not. Nor are interest groups like the NAACP or AARP. Nor are religious groups, charities, media companies, etc. None would have any rights at all under this amendment. Churches wouldn’t have religious rights either! Newspapers would have no freedom of the press!