Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 7, 2012, 12:06 p.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
2 comments 1 month ago by gsw
1 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Interesting, and indeed, state election laws were NOT at issue in Citizens United (so states should be encouraged to pass laws against undue corporate influence in elections e.g. regulations governing certain aspects of election advertising).
Gainesville Florida Occupy the Courts Action: Special speaker Dr. Cornel West will be with Move to Amend "Occupy the Courts" day of action HERE IN GAINESVILLE Jan. 20th, 2012. Mark your calendars. Event starts at 1pm , Location: Bo Diddley Plaza Gainesville, FL. Special Local Speakers, Street Theater Performance and a March to Federal Court Building at 401 Southeast 1st Ave, Gainesville, FL
Yes! We need this! I like the simplicity of the coffee party goals:
Campaign finance reform Wall Street reform Tax code reform
We need to Demand Accountability. Demand Prosecution for the MANY illegal behaviors of Wall Street and of Congressional Members who have been insider trading.
Great Idea!
I recommend wooden spoons - attack the court house with wooden spoons! Seriously. It's iconography. No actual damage will be done, it does provide opportunity for arrest on civil disobedience, it can be organized, properly choreographed, is humorous, and will generate media attention.
wooden spoons I say.
Coordination with local authorities and the media, combined with level headed activists, will provide a national media event that draws in the masses and refutes the notion that we are nothing but a bunch of dirty drunken hippies.
wooden spoons I say!
If you attack the court house with wooden spoons, then what are you going to use to beat on your tin can drum set??? just sayin
Too bad so many have the wrong impression about what the ruling in the Citizens United actually was.
Citizens did not define a "decree for unlimited, anonymous spending to influence our elections." It simply overturned a provision banning the broadcast of political speech around the time of an election or convention (typically about 60 days). The ruling made note of the fact that we already let many corporations (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc) broadcast political speech and opinion even as the votes are being taken. The ruling simply said they couldn't find a legal basis for allowing some corporations to engage in unrestrained speech while denying others the same opportunity.
For those that are interested, we long ago decided that the rights of the individuals choosing to associate are not lost by the mere act of association. If people of like mind decide to associate and speak or act in unison, they are free to do so insofar as their actions are permitted according to their individual rights. This is the legal basis for associations of people being treated as a person. It applies to unions, corporations, trade groups, the Sierra Club, and groups of grandmothers for gun control. This definition was not decided by Citizens, it's in the US Code as amended in the late 1940's. There is literally nothing an association of people can do that they couldn't already do as individuals. All the shareholders of a corporation could, for example, pool their funds and publish a political ad or make a donation to a candidate, and they'd be covered by their individual freedoms. The same is true of union members, trade groups, and other associations of people choosing to speak and act in unison.
There just isn't much we can do about people choosing to speak with one voice. It's covered by the rights of the individuals. We also can't limit when they can speak unless we apply the same law to all people including the media outlets because of the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection. I doubt we could place temporal limits on speech in any case; I'm sure none of us want the government dictating during what months we can protest, for example.
The courts have upheld the campaign donation limits imposed by McCain-Fiengold, and there's nothing in their rulings that would prohibit us from setting those limits to zero or whatever we want. We don't need a constitutional amendment or an Article V convection, we just need to modify the existing McCain-Feingold law in US Code.
I think we should ban all donations to campaigns, representatives, and employees of the government by all people and instead expand our existing Federal Election Campaign fund. I want to ban all contributions for two reasons: First, it's darned easy to "bundle" donations from shareholders so they are "individual"; Second, the poor can't afford to donate and it's not fair to let their voices be overcome by spending by affluent people who can afford to donate. See my post at http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4355&sid=d5a3f2fe411e0871ce8cba8554e92b2c#p4355 ,
I hope the folks protesting understand what they are protesting against and what they want changed. Otherwise, they're just another mob of malcontents. We have plenty of those. America tires of them.
[Deleted]
I know that, and you and I have spoken enough that you know I support change. I was referring to how others view us with an inference that it hurts our cause (which I think is accurate).
We can't just keep complaining about injustice and attribute the cause to erroneous sources. We'll get torn apart for our errors. We need to be well informed and demand specific changes that are well reasoned, constitutional, and effective.
[Deleted]
Fair enough. We disagree on tactics. I'm certainly no expert in political tactics, I can really only say that I myself am very put off by people complaining without showing they understand the problem and have a solution. I suppose there is a lot to be said for having boots on the ground, even if they don't fully understand what they're fighting for.