I don’t see how. I was asking for a clarification of your position.
Let me rephrase the question -
If Congress doesn’t like the way they are treated by the corporations known as media outlets, should Congress be able to restrict political free speech and forbid NBC/MSNBC and FOX from ever mentioning a Senator’s or Congressman’s name?
They’d have no more rights than they have in England, you mean.
Now you’re just being hysterical. Listen to the wording of the amendment here, Sanders specifically mentions preserving the freedom of the press.
No, see the video above. Freedom of press is preserved. There is an editorial chain which is acknowledged in the media, one knows where the money comes from and whose opinion is being voiced.
No, I mean NO rights under the U.S. Constitution. Like it says.
The amendment contradicts itself.
But what about all the other groups besides the press?
And the best irony is this - many of the (non-human) groups pushing for this amendment are themselves incorporated. As are many other political and interest groups.
A video is not the text of the amendment.
The video is titled “Overturn Citizens United”. Congress doesn’t “overturn” a SCOTUS ruling. Congress creates new and PROPERLY written legislation. I don’t understand why people continue to blame the SCOTUS for doing it’s job. The SCOTUS did not toss out every campaign fianance law. Campaign fianance laws still exist.
It is CONGRESS that failed to write a Constitutional bill.
Even Bernie Sanders understands that it up to Congress to write a bill or Amendment to control political campaign spending.
The second issue is that while freedom of the press would be preserved allowing them to say anything and everything about political candidates, other corporations, unions, guilds, interest groups, and groups of concerned/like minded citizens would be prevented from responding in kind or in public. The corporate media outlets would be free to elect anyone they chose to support.
Why is it fair to allow a media corporation unlimited speech and spending but not the opposition?
Limit all or limit none. Let the taxpaying voters hear all sides and let the taxpaying voter decide who they want to represent them.
Nitpick: Congress can overturn a SCOTUS ruling; in fact, it’s called “legislative overruling”. They just can’t overturn SCOTUS’ interpretation of a constitutional provision (like this one).
Which is disingenuous, since the constituent members would still have full protection of the Constitution.
I don’t really understand your contention here.
So you are fine with churches, political parties, and other groups have absolutely no rights?
You think that you can make a distinction between a church and its members having religious rights and be taken seriously?
By your logic, the government could forbid churches from spending money, or speaking as a church, etc. Oh, no, wait - are you going to say that churches have all the rights of individuals since they have the same rights as the individuals? Well, then, there’s no damn point to this silly amendment about only natural persons having rights, is there?
A corporation is a corporation. Why should a “media” corporation be allowed unlimited free speech but “another” corporation should not?
Who, or which political party in power, should get to decide which corporation(s) can speak freely and which corporation(s) can not?
Again, disingenuous to the point of hysteria. Corporations do not require positive legal rights in order for their constituent members to be granted rights.
It’s pretty simple. No expenditure on electioneering communications by certain corporations during certain times. That’s what the relevant section of BCRA said.
We’re not talking about corporations now. By this amendment, churches and political parties, to name a few, would have no rights whatsoever.
And that was unconstitutional. And you just can’t handle that.
You are alot like someone who wants to strip the rights of people you don’t like, such as the KKK or Nazi Party. Nobody likes those people either, but we MUST respect and protect their rights or else our own are a joke. I know it’s hard, but it must be done.
You really should read the amicus brief by the ACLU supporting the Citizen’s United decision.
Could you describe such a situation for me? What will be considered “electioneering communications”? An interview by Martin Bashir extolling the virtures of one candidate while denigrating the candidates opponent?
Why should media corporations be allowed to promote their candidate of choice and other “certain” corporations be restricted? Who’s speech do you want to restrict? Unions? NRA? Soros? Soros funded groups? Koch brothers? Your neighborhoods independent voters association? Who don’t you want to hear from?
It’s simple - the government decides what certain unfavored “communications” are and when they can be banned.
In other words, completely and blatantly in violation of the First Amendment.
This is an outright lie.
That’s all the amendment addresses (cite). I demand you retract your statement.
It strikes me that if the SCOTUS actually enforced the Constitution in a very technical, legalistic way without exercising any case-by-case judgment and disregarding social mores, it could very well follow that if “money is speech”, the federal law against vote-selling could be overturned as violating the First Amendment. But the real answer to the OP’s question is that regardless of any legal technicalities, direct vote selling is overwhelmingly seen as abhorrent and therefore that statute will never be overturned.
Responding to another point though about vote-selling:
This is actually at the root of my opposition to increasingly popular vote-by-mail schemes. I am a liberal/progressive, but I feel the left has mostly got it wrong on this one. The secret ballot was an important reform, and vote-by-mail allows employers (or, yes, union bosses) as well as family patriarchs (or matriarchs) to subtly or overtly violate that principle.
As much as I’d like to oppose Citizens United–just knowing that the majority includes Thomas and the minority includes Ginsburg is enough to make me very disinclined toward it–I can’t really see how this can be answered. It seems to me that Super-PACs probably *should *be legal, or else we can very easily get down a slippery slope as concerns the erosion of the First Amendment.
Great post.
It’s not fun upholding basic American principles sometimes, but it must be done.
Nope. It says very clearly that only natural persons have rights.
It couldn’t be more clear.
You are deluding yourself. So is Sanders.
Retract this, sucker.
“The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.”
THAT is what it says, quotes from a newspaper, or a senator who doesn’t even understand his own amendment, notwithstanding. This is a crappy amendment written in haste by zealots who didn’t think it through. But I doubt it’s possible to write better language that accomplishes the goal, which is to grant political rights conditionally.
Oh, and I demand an apology for saying I lied.
sjres 33
Another lie. Does your depravity have no limits?
Yeah. You know the resolution number. Wow.
It still says what I quoted.
If you have nothing more than to call me a liar when I’ve posted irrefutable evidence of my views, please don’t continue to post.
You should tell Sanders to fix his amendment instead of bashing your head against the wall.