Discussion for article #224909
So, $$$ = Speech, and everyone is guaranteed free speech by the 1st Amendment.
In that case, I’m waiting for my check to come in the mail, because some folks have a hell of a lot more speech than me.
So he wants an amendment where congress sets the limit on contributions? By what we have seen lately, that limit will be the same as if the amendment was never brought up.
“Why yes, I think that people aught to be able to give me as much money as possible. What could go wrong?”
We need an amendment that says that corporations are not people.
How about a constitutional amendment to declare that a corporation is not a person and does not enjoy the protections and liberties provided under the Bill of Rights?
Even if that doesn’t pass, I think enough voters would see through that one. After all, Republicans love to tout Scalia’s bunk about, “if it isn’t there, you can’t say it is there.” Getting on the corporation is not a person bandwagon exposes the hypocrisy of the GOP and hits them hard on judicial philosophy.
Legal experts say the five Republican-appointed justices, who ruled this year that the federal government only has a legitimate interest in prohibiting direct bribery, appear ready to continue scrapping campaign finance limits if given the opportunity.
So, indirect bribery is just fine I guess. Let’s see, if I stuff an envelope with cash and then give it to Joe over there, and then Joe gives it to his Congressperson while whispering in his ear that his friend (me) needs a tax break or a regulation gutted, then that’s not bribery, because it’s not direct? After all, Joe doesn’t need that special tax break and I never gave anything to the Congressperson, right? It’s also fine if Joe gets a little taste for being such a good friend.
If only there were, say, a national media capable of publicizing republication votes against measures like this, so that everyone would know that they’re opposed to the will of the people.
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.