Why 'Originalism' is wrong

Did you point out that it was extended before the SC gutted it? I don't recall you making that distinction.

I'm only concerned with it's effect, which was to proliferate dark money in politics .

 

No distinction needed to be made. I cited the LAW as written.

What about it and how do you define "dark money". Should you not be able to donate to causes you support and do so without it necessarily being public knowledge. What about that right to privacy? What exactly do you object about it and what would you change?

 

Wait just a f*cking minute.

You wrote:

Section 5, unless extended, will expire in August 2007.

You highlighted 'will expire in 2007, but you glossed over 'unless extended', giving the impression that the SC didn't really do anything that hadn't already transpired in 2007.

What other reason why you would have posted that, because clearly you didn't do your homework to see if Congress, did, indeed, extend it? Hmmm What other reason?

We all have speech. I talk to people and try to get them to vote for biden.

But, if I were a billionare who could donate to a PAC who could take millions I donate to buy TV ads for my candidate, my speech (money) has FAR MORE POWER and thus an unfair advantage over someone who isn't rich.

how in hell is that just and fair?

Money is not speech, it is POWER, in large quantities.

A rich man's Money is not the result of individual speech, lots of money is the ultimate result of the labor of many.

If you use it for a singular end, you are doing it without the consent of everyone who contributed to your wealth.

If I dig ditches for a day, and was paid, and donated that money to a campaign, that is one thing, but if I hire a million people to dig millions of ditches whose labor was hired by me, whereby I profited from a contract by a large corporation for those ditches, those profits were not my direct labor's profits, they are the profits derived from labor of the many, and if I use that profit for MY CANDIDATE, and not theirs, I'm doing it without their consent.

Now, you could argue, well, it's now your money. yes, but if I use that money for my candidate, having benefited from the labor of many, i'm doing it without their consent. The money I earned from profits of the labor of many, makes me far more powerful than each of those individuals, who could never donate more than a days pay, where i can donate from the day's pay of thousands.
it's one thing that I can use that wealth gained for products, yachts, real estate, but to elect someone who will govern, not just me, but them? Without their consent? is that just? I don't think so.

Is that just? I don't think so.

Money is power. It is not speech.

 

Yes the entire preclearance provision not just some formula.

And that is just one form of speech. Producing social media videos is another. Holding discussions and posting them is another. Printing books and pamphlet's and flyers is another, holding rally's is another. And we have the right to free assembly and combine our resources to exercise our rights on a broadscale. CU helped to guaranty that right when the Clinton campaign tried to shut it down.

And as long as you do not donate to the specific candidate you are free to do so just as poor people who don't work can donate hours a day of their time to a campaign to get out the vote. Should we limit how many hours a person can work for a campaign because it is unfair people who work lots of hours can't?

Do you believe government should regulate free speech to make it "fair"?

Money enables speech. How do you rent a hall to give a speech without money? How do you buy a TV ad? How do you produce social media video's? How do you print out mailings and pay for them? Your donation to a cause or candidate is YOUR free speech in support of that candidate or cause. That is bedrock principle you can whine about it all you want, I prefer the freest speech.

Which he paid for so what?

It their wealth not yours.

Jealousy and envy are not pretty things and have no place in our government or used to regulate speech you don't like.

The big flaw is YOU paid THEM not the other way around. Now if THEY used the money YOU paid them for a candidate you opposed then you might have some point.

Is your you earned it.

Tell that the Goebbels, Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Mao and every other dictator who ever ruled a country.

 

The simple fact money is power.It is not speech

Try walking in to Toyota dealership.I'd like to buy this car, Can I give you a speech for it?

If money is speech then speech is money.

Now we can see the absurdity of the court ruling.

As for "jealousy" and "envy"--quit making sh*t up.

Citizens united has corrupted politics.And it's so obvious it boggles my mind how republicans can't see it.

Bit by bit republicans are destroying the country.

 

Ironically this post is a fine example of MSU. ("making s**t up). Money, our more accurately USE of money can be equated as speech.

 

*In considering the impact of money in political campaigns, it is crucial to distinguish between "speech" as an act of expression protected under the First Amendment and "power" as a means of exerting disproportionate influence.

When an individual spends $30 on a poster to promote a candidate, this act constitutes a direct and personal expression of political support, clearly protected as speech under the First Amendment. However, when a single individual or entity spends millions of dollars to disseminate their political message, the nature of the action transcends mere expression and becomes an exercise of financial power. This form of influence, due to its scale and the resources involved, can overshadow the political discourse of ordinary citizens, effectively diminishing their democratic participation and voice.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United failed to acknowledge this crucial distinction. By equating large financial expenditures with individual expressions of speech, the court overlooked the qualitative difference between a multimillion-dollar campaign contribution and individual, grassroots advocacy. While ten million people donating $30 each represents a collective endorsement where no single donor predominates, a single $300 million contribution from one entity confers an ability to shape political narratives and influence elections in ways far removed from the traditional concept of "speech."

Proposal for a New Interpretation

The First Amendment protects free speech to ensure that everyone can express their views without government interference. However, it does not grant an unfettered right to wield economic power to dominate political discourse. Therefore, a more nuanced interpretation of the First Amendment is necessary—one that recognizes the difference between amplifying one's voice (which is protected) and drowning out others' voices (which should not be). This interpretation should aim to preserve the democratic principle that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have an equal say in public affairs.

Addressing Famous Personalities and Their Influence

The argument that fame naturally provides a larger platform is indeed a reality; however, this platform results from public interest and societal influence rather than purely financial means. When famous individuals speak, they do so from a platform built on public regard, which is fundamentally different from a platform built solely through financial expenditure. The distinction lies in how the platform is acquired and used. The former is a byproduct of personal achievements and public interest, while the latter could be seen as a deliberate attempt to buy influence, circumventing democratic processes.

Conclusion

By reevaluating how we treat money in politics, particularly large sums that far exceed typical individual contributions, we can better align our legal frameworks with the democratic ideals of equality and fair representation. The right to free speech should not be conflated with a right to excessive influence, which can undermine the foundational principles of a democratic society.

*NOTE: I wrote the above in my usual style, which was far more abrasive, stern, and had AI redo it so that it is more polite and thoughtful (mods have been getting on my case, lately ).

 

You might find less interesting. Just sayin'.

What the theory seems to gloss over is that corporations are actually groups of thousands or more individuals There for the amount a company donates is really the sum of hundreds of thousands of individuals; this applies also applies to labor unions. Except union members don't control the donation was investors that disagree with company position can sell his shares.
There are thousands of registered lobbying organizations representing various interests.

Don't misunderstand me, I'd like to drain some of the money out of politics but I don't see any workable solution.

 

Did the corporation get the consent of those thousands of individuals? I doubt it. That's the point. But, also, rich individuals, the same principle applies. I hold labor unions to the same, no one is exempt from the principle.

If I work for a large corporation, and the profits they derive from my labor are donated to a candidate I don't prefer, would they ask for my consent?

I doubt it. feel free to prove me wrong.

Money spent beyond the ability of a single voice, equals power.

What one says is protected, but it one, paying for it with money, amplifies it, artificially, the money spent to do that is not speech, it's power. Yet this SC thinks a corporation is a 'person' and entitled to the rights of a person.

I find that mindbogglingly stupid, and, consistent with partisans who are financed by the rich.

 

the shareholders grant the border of directors authority to run the company. Unions work similarly [/quote]

Working for a company is different that being a partial owner. Consider yourself proved wrong.

its call proportionality. Unions, NGO's etc, have the same power.

 

Sorry SCOTUS says your political contributions to your causes or candidates are SPEECH. Your right is to EXERCISE your speech and the various forms available including paying for ads and leaflets and a town hall and a microphone and tv time etc etc etc.

"The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations."

Why would you want to restrict that speech and only allow that which is utter from your mouth from where you are standing and no further?

Try going in an trading your motivational speech for a car, it's called bartering.

Do you see your absurdity in saying the only speech that is protect is that which you utter.

It is what you have based your complaints on, some have more money than you to spend on their causes.

How is MORE speech corrupting?