Forum Post: Are you willing to crush free speech to get money out of politics?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 12:53 p.m. EST by MikeyD
(581)
from Alameda, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Unless you are willing to do what it takes, people individually and collectively will get their political campaign message out via well produced videos supporting their candidate of choice, or destroying his competition, put out for free on youtube, or broadcast live via MSM airtime anyone can purchase. Eliminate corporate money and you are left with wealthy individuals who can buy that airtime, or campaign zealots who will donate their time for free.
The only answer to getting outside influence out of politics is to put a moratorium on free speech around election time.
No blog political entries by people other than candidates who are limited in what they can spend and time they can dedicate
No free speech by political commentators (Beck, Limbaugh, Maddow, O'Donnell) Around election time, who have the biggest campaign microphones of all
No political Youtube videos
No door to door campaigns other than those approved of within the funding guidelines of the FEC
No flyer campaigns
No political rallies other than those approved of by the FEC
Lets do what it takes to get money out of politics, overturn Citizens United, and end free speech on election year.
Whose with me?
Clever propaganda... Crushing free speech is not necessary. Free speech is good and necessary. What we need to do is get the money out of Washington (donations by lobbyist). Disallow any gifts or monetary consideration, to be given to politicians, their family or friends, for any reason... Improperly influencing elections through any means should be considered for what it is, Treason against the American People.
We need patriots, not politicians...
[Removed]
We're not attacking "Citizens' United" specifically.
We're seeking to abolish ALL corporate personhood to replace it with laws that recognize corporations as a separate entity.
Something tells me you know this, yet you believe your partisan views will fail in a democracy unobstructed by corporate influence.
[Removed]
corporations should not be considered citizens!!!
[Removed]
http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/2011/10/2011-occupy-america-peoples-official.html
you asked for specific.
[Removed]
Obviously the document is not solely about "corporate personhood".
ALL CAMPAIGNS SHOULD BE publicly funded. Period! No donations of any kind !! Boom. Done. Turn it into a pageant for all I care just keep the fucking corporate money out and don't limit free speech !
[Removed]
why are you obsessed with that???
In terms of reining in corporations,
I like the idea of licenses for every corporate project,
and losing your corporate business license after a 3rd major offense.
I also like the idea of limiting the size of corporate security forces.
[Removed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_v._Southern_Pacific
That's right.. Corporate Personhood has been the law of the land since 1886. It actually goes prior to that. It's called a "Legal Fiction".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
Why don't you actually start reading up on these subjects before going around spreading pompous falsehoods you get from Fox News and chain e-mails?? There's actually a whole history behind it. Not just some nonsense revisionist history from Glenn Beck's chalkboard but an actual documented history of how our legal and political system is the way it is. It may not be as fascinating as fake history filled with conspiracies and nefarious plots to destroy the constitution, but at least it's freaking real. There is a sequence of somewhat logical legal precedents made by the supreme court that set into motion the unintended consequence of too much business influence in politics.
The fact that you're completely oblivious to the history of corporate personhood (pre-Citizens' United) explains much of the ridiculous things you've posted.
[Removed]
"The only definition given corporate person hood has been citizens united."
This is what you posted.
It is a categorically false statement and if you took the time to look it up, you would realize that.
But you obviously live in a cocoon impervious to facts and it's obviously a useless endeavor to suggest you acknowledge those facts because you've already been brainwashed and are clinging to the ridiculous notion that corporate personhood started in 2010.
Seriously dude, are you just pretending to be a moron??
What you claimed is complete nonsense and I proved it's nonsense, yet you're too cowardly to read about it.
[Removed]
Do I need to explain to you how the legal system works??
I'll focus on only 2 branches of government so you don't get confused.
1- Legislative Branch - writes the laws
2 - Judicial Branch - interprets the laws
Still following?? It gets a little more complicated so bear with me.
Since no amount of protesting can or should affect the decision of the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) because they are charged only with interpreting the law, we need congress (Legislative Branch) to write the law (an amendment to the constitution clarifying the 14th amendment).
Seriously, if you're just going to reply with more nonsense that I haven't been clear enough, then you obviously still have more reading to do on the subject. Protesting to overturn a supreme court ruling will not do anything so long as the laws remain ambiguous. Regardless, it's not the job of the supreme court to answer directly to the people.
[Removed]
I'll answer all but your ridiculous straw man questions about abolishing corporations since I already know you dittoheads think all regulations are a communist plot to end all business.
Clarify the Equal Protections Clause in the 14th amendment so that it only applies to actual people and not artificial people(aka corporations).
I can't believe this wasn't obvious to you. But then again, you've proven over and over again you know absolutely nothing about this issue and have done nothing but spew conservative news memes rather than actually reading about it.
Also, you've made it clear you have no interest in actually reading about it because it threatens the bubble you live in.
Peace out.
20 hours and that was the best you could come up with? Couldn't answer even a single question about specifics? Good luck with that.
What wasn't I specific about??
Be specific.
Also, 8 hours spent sleeping and working a 12 hour shift doing real work and not tweeting from an office cubicle and posting on forums all day.
[Removed]
All your ridiculous strawman questions would be obvious to you if you actually learned the subject. Read up on the distinctions between legal personality and corporate personhood and perhaps you'll finally open your eyes to the ridiculous facade you've wasted so much of your time defending.
[Removed]
Uh no.
Not this kind of management policy.
If they want to give airtime as an individual let them.
It is their own wallets that are paying for the costs.
[Removed]
Ugh, don't we already have limits on individual contributions?
[Removed]
No signs, either? Geez...
Do you want a level playing field, or don't you?
Nah... you're forgetting the whole element of the living organism. As individuals we test all the waters, of every direction. And then move together as a populace after debating the advantages or disadvantages. That's how elections are won. You are saying that none would be free to comment or express an opinion.
[Removed]
haha... well then I guess the money stays.
Why not keep free speech and do away with elections. In some countries government service of some kind is a requirement. Why not just have a random selection of people (kind of like jury duty) drawn every four years and they go to DC for the term. When they are done repeat the random selection for a replacement. No elections and everyone gets a turn.
[Removed]
there would be no voters it would be random selection from the general population. and everyone gets one term
[Removed]
OK you are not getting my concept. If it is a random selection there is no campaign there is no advertising there is only people sitting at home watching the gong show or whatever and they get a letter in the mail (or an e-mail) and they go to DC and run shit for a couple of years. Could be some poor ass ghetto rat or some middle incomer we would never know who, it would be random. I am sure human nature being what it is there would be some way to corrupt it but hey gotta start somewhere. What this thread suggests is doing away with a right(even if on temp. basis) thats dangerous cause once given up rights are very difficult to get back. Just look at the patriot act, which just got renewed. Are we still so scared of terrorism that we are OK with wire taps and email reading by the Fed?
a possibility of 'snooki for president??' woot
hey could it be worse than what we have??
"it couldn't possibly be worse" famous last words
[Removed]
That removes all political voice, which is not an option. Money is the discriminating factor, These days it takes very little to create a video that look professional. Limiting the money limits access around the country that creates a democratic environment to air ideas and points of view. The last thing we want is to limit the ability to post on sites like Youtube.
[Removed]
Um...none of the things you mention cost money.
[Removed]
Down sparkles...
[Removed]
nope. once you give a right away you never get it back
ALL CAMPAIGNS SHOULD BE publicly funded. Period! No donations of any kind !! Boom. Done. Turn it into a pageant for all I care just keep the fucking corporate money out and don't limit free speech !
A much more non-intrusive way to accomplish the same goal would be to increase the level of education in this country so that the average citizen would find value in reading a couple of newspapers once a week, thinking about what he reads, and making an informed decision without being influenced by ridiculous arguments and hyperbole.
[Removed]
Where is your faith in your fellow man? I believe the average American is much hungrier for the truth than they are for some idiot yelling at them on cable news. If we can show them the truth through education they will respond. It all comes down to education.
[Removed]
Amen. I was lucky enough to seek out an engineering degree from my love of legos as a kid (seriously). I hear you...much larger problem to tackle...but imagine if we could solve it! Would set us straight for a generation.
The first step would be requiring a Personal Finance and Microeconomics course to graduate middle school.
[Removed]
Parents??? C'mon, they have too much reality television to watch to be expected to instill the basics...
Totally agree - for profit education is the way to go. Exhibit: our Nation's unrivaled private Universities. It's the only real way to insert competition into the education market so we can have schools competing against each other for enrollment. This would provide the proper incentives for the schools to hire the best teachers; and would provide the added benefit of increasing pay for excellent teachers.
It's a total win-win for the middle class and for teachers. Only difficult part is how to get lower-class kids enrolled, but I'm confident the charity / endowment / scholarship industry can figure that one out with the right incentive structure.
[Removed]
I haven't really seen the data, but my sense from some of the chatter is that testing is a relatively poor way to measure school performance. That is why I like the competition idea. It allows the market to decide what schools are good, and which aren't. A voucher-based system unleashes similar dynamic, but doesn't the government still set teacher salaries in that system? I would like to see market forces from both sides (enrollment and teacher compensation).
[Removed]
Totally agree on the voucher point, I guess it doesn't work. I'm advocating complete privatization of all schools (no vouchers). I'm a product of a Catholic school (though not Catholic myself) that offered all Math and Science classes taught by PhD, college-level professors. They took rich kids from the suburbs and subsidized poor kids from the city. It was the perfect mix of academia and real-world / diverse learning. I owe most of what I am today to my parents and that school. And it sent many, many under privileged kids to colleges they would have never dreamed of attending.
[Removed]
Are you completely fucking insane??
You have no idea what it will be like once Citizens United is Overturned and the corporations can't make campaign donations. No one does. It is an emergent property. Let's wait and see first and try it before we decide to put a moratorium on free speech. WTF!
[Removed]
sorry man. I am tired. gotta crash.
I've seen a lot of chatter about Citizens United, some people who chatter obviously aren't clear on what the case was about.
The ACLU considered it a free speech issue too, and they filed an amicus brief in support of the "corporations" side.
Anything you prevent "corporations" from doing in the political arena, you will also have to prevent labor unions from doing and many other organizations.
Just sayin. Everyone needs to be aware.
CU really wasn't a money out of politics issue the way I see it, even though it involved the McCain Feingold law.
[Removed]
Fuck You Douche!
[Removed]
Don't listen to me I'm just in a piss poor mood. Sorry man.
In a word "NO!"
Get the money out of politics by removing the incredible advantage for the minority: the ability to create money out of thin air. Revoke "fractional reserve lending" by private institutions.
The U.S. Constitution binds government to represent the interests of the American people – “to promote the General Welfare” and empowers our Federal Government to create, issue and regulate our money (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5). We must hold our officeholders responsible to the laws.
http://www.Monetary.org
http://www.monetary.org/intro-to-monetary-reform/faqs
Uh Hello,
Constitution, if freedomm of speech is done away with you can bet there are thousands willing to fight to the death to counter that, me included
You are obviously unready to do what it takes to get money out of politics. Read up on 527 groups and educate yourself.
Im unready to have my liberties infringed upon, and I am sure I am not alone, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to assemble, protection from unlawful search and seisure, just a few liberties many will never give up, not for any extreme fringe ideology.
Free speech promotes dialogue, even if you disagree with what someone says and believes. For it's thought and idea generating properties, we must never limit free speech.
MikeyD, The problem with speech is determining if it is truthful.
Perhaps all we really need is a label: Official and Not Official.
We have some of that today. But, it is expensive to challenge the opinions expressed in attack ads.
If the government provides an official web site for each candidate to spell out their positions on the issues and refute claims which they do not agree with, then the press and anyone interested can fact check the ads.
Maybe that would be sufficient.
Sounds like a ringing endorsement of citizens united.
it's never a good idea to end free speach, or you wouldn't be writing this and neither would i. Politicians just need to be regulated as to how much they can spend on a campaign, no matter how much money they have; giving the poorer slobs a chance.
it's never a good idea to end free speach, or you wouldn't be writing this and neither would i. Politicians just need to be regulated as to how much they can spend on a campaign, no matter how much money they have; giving the poorer slobs a chance.
[Removed]
But you're leaving out the incumbent. During an election the incumbent always owns the airwaves. Obama is in or on the news virtually every day. I think to limit the challenger is rather unfair.
I'm all for a level playing field. I admit it would be very difficult to jail the president for "hitting the stump" to push his jobs bill which, by all accounts, is simply 2012 campaigning. There again though, we already have campaign finance laws that prohibit campaigning with taxpayer dollars, so I do wonder what good any new laws will do.
For some people, Freedom of Speech should be changed to Freedom of Irresponsible Ignorance.
If that's the case then why don't we update it to Let's all drive through traffic with our eyes closed?
It would have a similar effect; the potential to cause harm and injury to many while being reckless and showing lack of common sense/intelligence .
Yet there would still be those same people who continually insist that this is how the First Amendment was intended to be used, that their rights are being impinged upon by asking them to consider others and their actions.
If you can't get your message across without being offensive and/or using obscenities then maybe your message isn't as rational or well-thought out as it should be.
Resorting to these cheap tactics show a real lack of actual substance and the overall intelligence/ability to really allow others to see your perspective.
If people want this movement to be taken seriously then don't allow these kinds of destructive messages to overshadow and take away from your intentions.
That also includes any destructive behaviors like the current riots in San Diego.
Nonsense. I think it is safe to say that nearly everyone in this movement wants the Citizens United decision overturned. While I agree, the downside is the 527 groups will continue to burn through corporate money just as fast quickly as if the money had been donated directly to a given candidate's campaign.
If we are going to bring resolution to getting money out of politics, some draconian measures must be taken. Now is not the time for the faint of heart.
you are a douchebag!
This is ridiculous. We want an end to legalized bribery and multi-million dollar campaigns. Ban campaign contributions from organizations. Limit money from private individuals to $1 each. No one should stop you from putting a sign in your yard or writing a blog.
Big difference.
I agree wholeheartedly.
[Removed]
We should ban all 527 groups. That is different than putting a sign in your yard or putting a video on youtube.
[Removed]
Throw them in jail for violating election laws. Not to mention the bad PR it causes the canidate they support. Whether you call yourself a group or not, raising and spending money for political purposes should be illegal.
That has not bearing on the actions of individuals. It is a matter of money. Both the person soliciting the money and the person/group paying it out should be liable.
You want to have a blog or make youtube videos, be my guest. Someone pays you to trash or support a canidate, should be illegal.
Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow receive checks for promoting and trashing political candidates. I hope you are proposing we throw them in jail for campaign laws, because that is exactly what I am proposing.
They receive checks from their employers, not the campaigns or canidates.
So what you are saying is that wealthy people who want to deliver campaign messages simply need to start a quasi legitimate media company for a year, and then they can throw as much money at campaign advertising as they want? Or were you saying that only existing media empires like News Corp should be able to broadcast their political agenda with unlimited funding behind them. What are you getting at?
Politically aligned media is mostly watched by people who already agree with the agenda. The system we have now is based on legalized bribery and mega cash campaigns. There is no perfect solution, but you can't tell someone that they can't make youtube videos endorsing their favorite candidates. Its unenforcable and desotic to say the least.
[Removed]
People make movie to make money. The average citizen won't buy that kind of crap.
[Removed]
Silly troll continues to be silly.
And no micheal moore movies being released just before an election. moore is a corporation too and he is a political spin master as well
Of course, but we wouldn't just stop at Moore. We would need to shut down every political commentator with a large audience.
When you do that I will get myself elected with but one promise - a trillion dollars to everyone. And there will be no voice to challenge me.
The american people aren't that stupid. We just need to get the money out of politics.
That's not what were asking for. We want an end to Corp. ownership of the Gov't and the political process. !st $$ is NOT speech and secondly Corps. are not people. We want both these odious SCOTUS rulings voided by a new Amendment to the Constitution or we need a Constitutional Convention to level the playing field again.
So what do you propose to do about 527 groups.