patsfan13

Groups of people should have to scheme to 'get around' laws in order to use their First Amendment right.

Let the Unions Trial lawyers, NEA and corps express their opinions. As long as contributions are documented.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

chicowalker

I agree.

But this is a far cry from the notion that only favored groups of the left would still have what you consider free speech.


At least now you're taking an honest approach on the issue.

They can express their opinions -- through their members. But there should be a way for people to pool their resources and efforts. I think I'd lean toward limitations on these expenditures rather than an outright ban.

patsfan13

Under the proposed amendment that would be the case.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

patsfan13

From the Amendment:


This is really scary stuff. This would say that congress would have the power to regulate ALL CAMPAIGN expenditures (Section 4). This amendment rips the First Amendment apart. We can imagine the outrage if congress sought to regulate what is or is not porn and whether it could be published/consumed. Yet when t applied to political speech we are supposed to think that is OK????????????

This is aimed at Business and Business groups. Not Unions of NGA's or Professional Organizations.

This is a political document to take rights away from the opposition while not affecting allies.


BTW this is more than 4 sentences but since this is a congressional bill it is by definition public domain.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

chicowalker

No, it wouldn't -- which is clear even from your own posts here.

PatriotsReign

Our gov't should never, ever make a law that bans buinesses from political contributions while not banning unions and other special interest groups.

The KEY word is that all GROUPS should be banned from making $$ political contributions. We (and I speak for all Americans) don't want our politicians to be beholden to any group. Only individual citizens can vote and only individuals citizens should be eligible to make a $$ campaign contribution.

Why would any American want our elected officials to be obligated to ANY group whether it be Exxon/Mobil or the NAACP?

__________________
"No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"

chicowalker

If you're just talking about campaign contributions, I agree with you.

Where things get trickier is other forms of political spending.

chicowalker

you realize there are laws restricting pornography, right?

Real World

I agree that if you are going to ban one, then you should ban them all. That is at least consistent, and equal under the law. I'm just not sure I like "banning" things.

Yes indeed. Where's the line, or is there a line? I believe this is where that McLame Fiengold legislation had issues. While you might "ban" Exxon, or Bob's Stores from donating to a campaign, does that mean they can't contribute to, or even undertake by themselves, an ad campaign related to politics? If a company can't give money to Joe Blow the candidate, can they run an ad about Joe Blow, his opponent, a campaign issue, or whatever else it wants with it's own funds. I don't see how/why they wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't. This is why I feel the focus should always be placed on the actual person in office. It's not the union, corporation, or organization that decides policy. It's the people in office.

Restrictions, regulations, controls, etc. are all fine imo. The degree of each is what matters. It's no different than not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded room, or requiring a FID card to buy a firearm. In the case of pornography, porn itself may be restricted, but it isn't banned. Most people are fine with that.

Not to hijack, but I remember when they wanted to require all porn sites to use the .xxx in their web address. I believe that was struck down by the courts. It was a long time ago, so I could be wrong, but one way or another it wasn't imposed. At the time I actually thought that was a good idea, in that it would make it easier for parents to block porn sites on home computers. I might have to google that and see what happened there.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

patsfan13

Other than child porn what can one find that isn't on the internet?

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."