Maggie's Farm

its good thing to find a way to limit the speech of entities to buy elections, where speech = money.

I've read the article, the proposed amendment, legislative intent, etc.

you as an individual citizen have virtually no voice in politics because typically, if you call your congressman/representative/county zoning board guy/whatever, the service you get is directly related to how much you contribute to the reelection fund. that's what the first amendment means: both Local 666 and Consolidated BS get to outspend you and therefore, congressman's chief of staff will return their phone calls before an intern gets around to returning yours.

and if you think you as a shareholder have some say in how a corporation spends political money, guess again, courts routinely give deference to the decisions of management or the directorate, so all that influence is concentrated into the hands of a few men and women who, if they're directors, are also likely to be sitting on the boards of other companies.

if further dilution of what's left of what it means to be a citizen is your bag, its not mine.

notice in #2 I said, "where speech = money".

I'd happily deny all business entities -- corporations for profit, not for profit, LLCs, LPs, GPs, trusts, JVs, narcotics gangs -- the right to make any cash campaign contributions.

you're being told this is some horrendous infringement on sacred rights but in fact you're k00gasming over the right of an entity to out shout you.

I can't advise you on your quixotic quest to influence the NYT or Moore.

but I'll state, one more time, I'd deny business entities of all kind the right to make money contributions to campaigns. this doesn't seem particularly difficult to enforce. the FEC can do it. I bet I could define "in kind" and include that as well.

I'm not convinced you understand this. under the proposal, the NYT or Totally Bitchin' Gun 'n Ammo can editorialize all they want in the exercise of their First Amendment rights without any but the usual restrictions on speech content, but can't contribute $ to any campaign.

and, by the way, you do know that no constitutionally guaranteed right is absolute.

Whatevah! You're not getting it. Amend the constitution to deny the right of any business entity to give money to political parties, candidates, incumbents. No one is proposing muzzling the NYT or the right of your favorite union to endorse or order its members to vote D or do anything but give money to a campaign. I'm harping on money because that's what the amendment proposes.

Political campaign contributions are routinely reported to the FEC or state equivalents, its been that way since the 1960s. What are you not understanding here? "If thou art a business entity, thou shalt not give money to a candidate or thy company shall be fined excessively and thy board of directors jailed".

Why are you so worried about the right of Toyota to buy a couple of senators?

only business entities giving money should be barred because cash has a disproportionate, insidious effect, more than any other kind of campaign assistance ("money is the mother's milk of politics" - Jesse Unruh).

everything else is protected speech, whether Moore's or Moore's production company's blather or a company's threat to move or a newspaper endorsement.

Here's a parable. I'm a county commissioner / Harry Reid and Land Development Inc. has been generously contributing bags of cash to my campaigns for years and my office gets a call asking for assistance on obtaining a conditional use permit to establish a smoke shop / approval of a major land swap to develop a subdivision worth a billion dollars. You're a homeowner who had to look up my name to see who to talk to about opposing that CUP / subdivision. who do you think I'm going to work for? do you think I care that you're going to upload a video / Michael Moore is going to write a movie attacking my ethics? there are probably a dozen there already. the Daily Planet is selling a brand to people who people who self-identify with its politics anyway, its endorsement for or against me isn't going to change anyone's mind because everyone already either hates me or love-hates me. With Land Development Inc's. kickbacks campaign contributions paying for radio / TV / social media ads and an army of college interns manning phone banks and pimping door to door, I'm going to stay in office until I want to upgrade / die.

Counsel ...

as you know, the first amendment is not absolute and content regulation is permitted if the regulations meet constitutional standards. which is why child porn and defamation are not protected speech, and why the law can impose limits on my personal right to be heard (where being heard = giving money), e.g., the FEC swears I can't give more than $2,600 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee, $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC, $10,000 per calendar year to a state or local party committee, $32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee, $100 in cash to any political committee.

outrageous. my speech content right is infringed, my personal right to be heard is stunted. but all apparently constitutional.

I also see the FEC believes that whole categories of persons are totally denied their speech rights (where speech = giving money): foreign nationals (excluding LPRs), federal government contractors.

so let's not pretend the first amendment guarantees every person a right to be heard (where being heard = giving money).

the NYT's editorializing blather is core first amendment protected political speech, don't conflate that with restrictions on campaign contributions. no one is trying to muzzle the Times in that sense.

given the above-examples of why we don't in fact, have to equally protect everyone's or no one's first amendment rights, can you give me a coherent policy reason why Toyota should have a louder voice in Kentucky elections than Kentuckians?

get up to speed on the issues and don't misrepresent my position.

if you want your individual voice heard, and it barely counts now, you need to limit the speech rights of entities where speech = $ to campaigns. there are only a half dozen examples in this thread.

unless its not important to you, and you can explain why a Japanese company should have more of a say in who the senators from Kentucky will be than individuals living there just because it can pour yen dollars into an election.

happy about that?

you'll always have rich guys giving lots of money. nothing is stopping you from lobbying 10 of your friends and raising money for whoever you want to buy.

re: Toyota buying politicians. explain again why you're supporting this. pretend you're trying to convince Madison or Hamilton at the constitutional convention why its a good thing that foreign corporations should be able to influence elections more than US citizens because $ = free speech.

re: pandora's box. I understand first amendment law as well as any other practicing attorney who handles first amendment cases once in a while.

what potential laws are you concerned about?

Re: westboro, nazis, klan. I'm not aware of these groups making substantial money contributions to campaigns. are you?

Saw them, I understand them.

Unlike you.

And, unlike you, I'm not hiding behind someone else's opinion on a public debate forum.

I disagree with both of them, I explained why; you can't keep up. Suggest you lurk more.

no, its too late for personal slurs. you've already lost the debate.

besides, you can't afford my fees.