Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should the First Amendment be modified so that speech influencing elections can be regulated? [View all]Ohio Joe
(21,795 posts)40. Are you advocating for corporations to be allowed to spend unlimited money on elections?
Is that what you want?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Should the First Amendment be modified so that speech influencing elections can be regulated? [View all]
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
OP
that's a very broad exception--congress could criminalize criticizing their favorite candidates
fishwax
Jan 2014
#1
In the US today, it is almost impossible to get your message out without spending money.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#8
The wording in the OP would eliminate protections against criticizing candidates in private
fishwax
Jan 2014
#13
Perhaps the word "public" could be inserted immediately before the word "speech"
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#14
but that would still remove protections against going to a park with a bullhorn
fishwax
Jan 2014
#18
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect political speech I thought? Am I missing
el_bryanto
Jan 2014
#5
An amendment stating that "money isn't speech" would be devastating to the First Amendment.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#7
A little OT, but I feel strongly that the UK should have a written constitution. Do you agree?
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#25
And the UK Government (for example) has the power to do all of that stuff already,
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#20
If you don't want Congress (or a state government) to exercise the power, don't give it to them.
onenote
Jan 2014
#55
The solution to an overexpansive reading of the First Amendment by the SCOTUS
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#27
"Money is not speech" would be a breathtaking circumscription of the First Amendment.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#31
So you think that it should be constitutional to ban books that mention election candidates
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#34
The problem is money and the capture of the media, not anything in the Bill of Rights. nt
bemildred
Jan 2014
#33
"Money is not speech" would be a breathtaking dismemberment of the First Amendment.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#41
Should Congress be allowed to ban expenditure on speech to whatever extent they like?
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#44
With the current First Amendment, Congress does not have the power to do that.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#48
Congress can and does get amendments passed, this one should be quite popular.
bemildred
Jan 2014
#49
You do realize that Congress cannot, by itself, pass constitutional amendments? (nt)
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#51
You realize you're throwing the union baby out with the Citizens United bath water.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#57
Not the union baby, the union-money baby, unions will have more power than ever.
bemildred
Jan 2014
#68
Are you advocating for corporations to be allowed to spend unlimited money on elections?
Ohio Joe
Jan 2014
#40
I agree with the current ban on corporate campaign contributions in Federal elections.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#43
The ACLU supports what is in the constitution... That does not make it best for our country
Ohio Joe
Jan 2014
#50
"...if restrictions are reasonable as to time and place (i.e. X months before an election)..."
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#58
The 1A isn't designed to sell soap bubbles, it's meant to allow people to challenge the gov't
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#63
Laws aren't made by experts; they're made by politicians and by that I mean
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#77
Your problem is that it only takes a court decision that takes exception to banning books.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#70
Some speech may be construed as harassment and/or threats. So I can argue this either way.
KittyWampus
Jan 2014
#73