General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

60. I'm at a loss to see how that could be legal/constitutional.

Reply to COLGATE4 (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:47 PM

Jan 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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

Their "favorite candidates" are themselves. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #3

the exception is much broader than spending money though fishwax Jan 2014 #4

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

Yep. Circumscribing free speech is a very tricky thing. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #22

No. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #2

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

Unless you had to buy the bullhorn. Igel Jan 2014 #16

Uh Guys, this is what McCain Feingold did. Savannahmann Jan 2014 #6

I have FreeJoe Jan 2014 #11

Absolutely NOT........ Swede Atlanta Jan 2014 #9

In the United States today, money is speech. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #10

There's a simple response to this. Igel Jan 2014 #26

Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman is an interesting example (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #38

What's up with all the threads suggesting freedom of speech is too free? WillowTree Jan 2014 #12

I personally oppose messing with the First Amendment. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #17

Pass dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #15

I feel free to weigh in on other countrys' affairs when I feel like it. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #23

None of those refer to their constitutions dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #24

A little OT, but I feel strongly that the UK should have a written constitution. Do you agree? Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #25

Yes - UK has no single constitutional document. dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #30

Wow. Absolutely not. onenote Jan 2014 #19

And the UK Government (for example) has the power to do all of that stuff already, Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #20

Because the government is handling itself so responsibly Ms. Toad Jan 2014 #28

Congress does nothing in a reasonable manner. nt geek tragedy Jan 2014 #29

If you don't want Congress (or a state government) to exercise the power, don't give it to them. onenote Jan 2014 #55

I voted no, but on the other hand MurrayDelph Jan 2014 #21

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

And all are also economic activity that is regulated. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #32

So you think that it should be constitutional to ban books that mention election candidates Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #34

The First Amendment covers books through freedom of the press Bjorn Against Jan 2014 #66

The problem is money and the capture of the media, not anything in the Bill of Rights. nt bemildred Jan 2014 #33

The Citizens United decision is based upon the First Amendment (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #35

And it is WRONG. And it will be FIXED. nt bemildred Jan 2014 #36

How? With a constitutional amendment? Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #37

I expect the two parties to cooperate to bring it about. bemildred Jan 2014 #39

"Money is not speech" would be a breathtaking dismemberment of the First Amendment. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #41

Bullshit. Speech is speech. Try to put some in the bank. bemildred Jan 2014 #42

Should Congress be allowed to ban expenditure on speech to whatever extent they like? Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #44

Congress should ban private money in politics altogether. bemildred Jan 2014 #47

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

Yes, I do. nt bemildred Jan 2014 #53

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

Open support for Citizens United on DU... Ohio Joe Jan 2014 #45

Yes, I openly support the decision. And so does the ACLU. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #46

The ACLU supports what is in the constitution... That does not make it best for our country Ohio Joe Jan 2014 #50

... Zorra Jan 2014 #78

There should be consequences when a lie used to slam an opponent randr Jan 2014 #52

Yes, overt, demonstrable, political lies should have consequences. bemildred Jan 2014 #54

Faux isn't a publicly licenswed network onenote Jan 2014 #64

All of their local stations are certainly licensed randr Jan 2014 #69

The First Amendment guarantee of free speech COLGATE4 Jan 2014 #56

"...if restrictions are reasonable as to time and place (i.e. X months before an election)..." Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #58

That's your prerogative. My point was limited COLGATE4 Jan 2014 #59

I'm at a loss to see how that could be legal/constitutional. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #60

The same way that advertising is not nearly COLGATE4 Jan 2014 #62

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

So, is it your position that political speech COLGATE4 Jan 2014 #74

There should be restrictions Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #75

Brilliant response. Shows your high COLGATE4 Jan 2014 #76

Laws aren't made by experts; they're made by politicians and by that I mean Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #77

The law draws a line between "commercial" speech and political speech onenote Jan 2014 #65

That's exactly what I said. But if COLGATE4 Jan 2014 #72

Your problem is that it only takes a court decision that takes exception to banning books. Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #70

No more of a problem than a court decision that COLGATE4 Jan 2014 #71

Proposed 501(c)(4) tax amendments sort of accomplish part of this goal Gothmog Jan 2014 #61

Really? NaturalHigh Jan 2014 #67

Some speech may be construed as harassment and/or threats. So I can argue this either way. KittyWampus Jan 2014 #73

Yes, but only in the sense of limiting the amount and nature of financial and in kind contributions. tblue37 Jan 2014 #79

It's already regulated where I vote. idendoit Jan 2014 #80