Jump to content

Very powerful.


kevbone

Recommended Posts

While you are at it, can you tell us about Ron Paul's position on Citizens United? Or is it one one of those topics that Ron Paul refuses to address publicly because it'd show that his rhetoric about corporocracy is 180deg opposite to his practice?

 

Ron Paul's role in the Citizens United decision: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/election/Witness/Boos.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While you are at it, can you tell us about Ron Paul's position on Citizens United? Or is it one one of those topics that Ron Paul refuses to address publicly because it'd show that his rhetoric about corporocracy is 180deg opposite to his practice?

 

Ron Paul's role in the Citizens United decision: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/election/Witness/Boos.pdf

 

 

My wife is an attorney but I am not. Do you expect me to read that document and understand it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you are at it, can you tell us about Ron Paul's position on Citizens United? Or is it one one of those topics that Ron Paul refuses to address publicly because it'd show that his rhetoric about corporocracy is 180deg opposite to his practice?

 

Ron Paul's role in the Citizens United decision: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/election/Witness/Boos.pdf

 

 

SCOTUS supported the showing of the Citizen's United anti-Hilary movie within 90 days of an election because a) it constituted political speech - the most protected form under the 1st Amendment, b) restrictions to political speech requires strict scrutiny, ie, the govt. must show substantial harm will result from the speech and c) McCain Feingold provided NO evidence of ANY harm that might result from the Citizens United movie.

 

The ruling applies only to speech independent and uncoordinated by any campaign.

 

What part of this classic upholding of the 1st Amendment do you disagree with? Would you prefer that the govt. limit political speech without showing any harm? If so, who gets to make that call, and how would that power be limited?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is the only Republican who could compete with Obama...

 

why should you care whether or not anybody competes with Obama from the right when there are candidates competing with him from the left. Example:

 

[video:youtube]v=tYQfgMt3jws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

don't folks form corporations for the purpose of political speech/action? such as, say.....the aclu? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

 

Corporations are aggregations of people, who certainly do have 1st Amendment rights. Furthermore, 1st Amendment rights are not 'granted' by government - quite the opposite. The government (thankfully) must make a case for restricting such rights. It must prove a harm when doing so.

 

Any time the Congress wants to show a substantial harm for allowing a corporation to show a politically oriented movie independent of any campaign just before an election, it's free to do just that. SCOTUS left that avenue wide open. So far, however, it has not done so, and therefore has no case for restricting political speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

don't folks form corporations for the purpose of political speech/action? such as, say.....the aclu? :)

 

YUP. Shut down Citizens United and without requiring the government to show a harm from its political speech and you've given your government the ability to silence political speech from any non-profit corporation, including the ACLU.

 

I'll take the Citizens United decision, thanks. I'd prefer not allowing the idiots in Congress to decide what the advocacy organizations I support can and cannot say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

don't folks form corporations for the purpose of political speech/action? such as, say.....the aclu? :)

 

Right, but there is a difference between corporations for profit (and only profit despite whatever claim they may have that whatever they do is to improve our lives :lmao: ) and non-profit corporations meant to improve the collective good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations are aggregations of people, who certainly do have 1st Amendment rights.

 

I don't follow the logic. The people retain their 1st amendment rights, while corporations are a construct enabled by the government of the people.

 

Furthermore, 1st Amendment rights are not 'granted' by government - quite the opposite. The government (thankfully) must make a case for restricting such rights. It must prove a harm when doing so.

 

government is in the business of providing equal protection for people, not corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The super PACs that are currently outspending the campaigns 3:1 in Iowa are all non profit corporations. Should it be OK for Soros or Murdoch to run ads as individuals while gagging less financially powerful folks who wish to pool their resources to get their message out? I don't believe so.

 

The post citizens united world is turning out to be a big yawn. More $ is being spent on media, providing jobs, but it's the same ole attack ad environment that favors no particular viewpoint. Free speech is no longer restricted by the unsupported whims of Congress.

 

Despite all the whining about CU, I've yet to meet one complainant who is sdvacating for congress to produce evidence of substantial harm for independent ads - a path left wide open by SCOTUS.

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/5-occupy-protesters-arrested-outside-of-ron-paul-campaign-headquarters-in-suburban-des-moines/2011/12/29/gIQAcvYgOP_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop

 

The protest at the Paul headquarters was aimed at his proposal to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency if elected.

 

 

BUT DON'T THEY KNOW RON PAUL IS OUR PERFECT WHITE CHRISTIAN BABY?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...