Ruling Could Unleash Flood of Campaign Cash

[Stealth Hunter]

Well... looks like we'll be seeing a lot more special interest groups meddling in political affairs now.

[Platapus]

Trying to control such actions can be tricky.

On one hand we want to limit the ability to flood the campaign with advertisements to the point where who ever has the most money can get elected.

On the other hand trying to restrict what a citizen/group of citizens can say is an infringement of their first amendment rights.

Trying to find balance in that is challenging.

[CaptainHaplo]

It shouldn't be challenging at all. It should be downright easy.

If you can vote in the election in question - you can contribute to the campaign. If you can't pull a lever or feed the ballot to a machine, then you cannot fund the campaign.

Also - this is a horrible decision. The freedom of speech is reserved for individuals or "groups" - aka LIKE MINDED individuals - not corporations or unions. Corporations and Unions are made up of people with diverse political views, as well as both of these have a vested BUSINESS related interest in the outcome of elections that goes BEYOND the individual interest. To extend a PERSONAL right to a corporation or union, PAC or lobby group, is to pervert the purpose of Freedom of Speech. It was intended so that every person could be heard, not so that every person could be drowned out by a special interest.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The freedom of speech is reserved for individuals or "groups" - aka LIKE MINDED individuals - not corporations or unions.

On what are you basing this on?

[Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble....[/quote]

Not seeing anything here about like minded groups and corporations.

I don't think you will find too many constitutional scholars that would link the terms "like minded" with "freedom of speech". Restricting freedom of speech to only like minded groups kinda goes against the intent don't it?

[CaptainHaplo]

Platypus - how familiar are you with the Bill of Rights, and its stated purpose?

Specifically, the Bill of Rights was proposed and adopted to protect INDIVIDUAL rights further than the unamended constitution provided for.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This says clearly that free speech is a right that the government cannot restrict. However, can a corporation talk? Can a union? Yes and no. The amendment clearly speaks to this - the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It thus says that if a UNION wants to have a large group of protestors outside congress - then the government cannot restrict that right provided they protest peaceably. Thus in that case those assembling are of a LIKE MIND - and are protected regardless of which side of an issue they are on. However - a COMPANY or UNION who sends a representative to congress to LOBBY, or pays for an ad supporting a specific candidate - cannot honestly claim to have everyone in the "group" fully in support. This lobbyist protectionism is not the purpose of the First Amendment. Its intent as history shows given the debates when it was adopted - show that the entire Bill of Rights was an addendum to the constitution as an additional protection for one group and only one group - the PEOPLE of the US.

[Platapus]

I understand what you have written, but I don't think it supports your position as you may think it does.

@CaptainHaplo
Constitutionaly, I see it as you do.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

However - a COMPANY or UNION who sends a representative to congress to LOBBY, or pays for an ad supporting a specific candidate - cannot honestly claim to have everyone in the "group" fully in support.

I kind of agree with you in a general sense but playing devils advocate neither can it be claimed that they don't have that group support and as far as I know the constitution doesn't say a company or union must prove that before it is allowed to speak.

Besides I know plenty of union guys who have taken their turn walking picket lines when they'd rather be inside earning their pay, but if they crossed the line the union would see to it they were fired. So in reality those protesters might not be all that supportive of what they're protesting but rather just trying to protect their livelihoods.