Posted on 09/01/2012 11:04:11 AM PDT by virgil283
"In his first term, Obama raised the national debt by $5 trillion, seized control of the healthcare sector on behalf of the federal government, and seized control of General Motors on behalf of the tumor that has been killing it, the UAW. How could he top this in a second term? How about by officially repealing the First Amendment? President Barack Obama called for restrictions to be put on political speech during a Wednesday “Ask Me Anything (AMA)” session on the website Reddit, an Internet link-sharing community."
(Excerpt) Read more at moonbattery.com ...
Obama also called on Congress to pass the Disclose Act, which would require any organization that spends more than $10,000 on election-related activities to disclose all of its donors who have contributed more than $10,000."
Anyone who is shaky on their commitment to vote for Romney needs to consider this issue. If Obama appoints a new justice, Citizens United will be overturned. It’s a great decision not only for what it did, but for what it lays the groundwork to do in the future. A return to economic liberty rights and substantive due process for corporations is really huge.
No curbs on labor union contributions, however.
Well, to be fair, a repeal of Citizens, or a Const. Am. would stop that as well.
Actually, Obama started attacking the First Amendment before this: his contraception mandate is an attempt to reinterpret “free exercise of religion” as “freedom of worship” (one almost can hear “and of anti-religious propaganda” appended after that).
Actually the Disclose Act is perfectly defensible, so long as it’s applied to all organizations, be it for-profit corporations, labor unions, PACs, . . . I’d actually like to see a fix to Citizens United that actually makes the reasoning in the majority opinion into law: since the right of corporations (and labor unions) to engage in political speech is derivative from the natural right of the individuals who make them up, require all political expenditures to be approves by the shareholders (rank and file) rather than allowing the management (union bosses) to expend the resourses of the shareholders (rank and file) to support their political agenda (which may be at variance to that of people on whose behalf they are engaged in political speech under the reasoning in Citizens Unites).
This man despises America and all it stands for. His Anti-Colonial mindset and left wing upbringing prohibit any other understanding of what this great nation is all about. He is as committed to the destruction of the present day USA as is a tornado to a trailer park.
 |
No, disclosure is not defensible. We’re not talking about candidates who have to release info in exchange for federal funds, here. It would be as if every newspaper, tv station, website, etc. had to give a list of every investor, staff member, and interested party before it was allowed to report the news. Everyone’d see through that as a violation of freedom of the press in a millisecond. But not so free speech, since ignoramouses have convinced us that money and corruption are the same thing. There first of all is no power yo demand to see who’s investing in so and so private company. If people want to pool their money together to open a bowling alley or help elect someone it is equally none if our business how open and “transparent” they are.
That’s not even to touch on free speech, which easily overrides the no power concern. Your right to spend money to influence the public outdistances bu a lighthearted others’ interest in knowing and being empowered to shame, intimidate, or hilt you. And we all know that’s the point. We love our boycotts and our occupations. Guaranteed disclosure acts would result in an abundance of SEIU mobs camping out on bankers’ lawns.
Which is to say nothing of the evermore ominous agitprop of the state. Oh, you helped pay for Rubio ‘16? Let me take a look at your tax return. Wouldn’t want you to be in violation of any environmental regulations, building codes, equal employment laws, ADA requirements, now would we?
Lib’s talk alot of nonsense about “chilling effects,” and this is one case where they’d be right. If they weren’t on the other side. This is one big chilling effect. Insofar as it isn’t and it’s just a way to help people make an informed decision, it’s none of their business.
Lib’s = Libs
lighthearted = lightyear
Sorry, I’m having problems with my computer finishing words for me.
Arguing that the state could engage in abuses of power or that government unions would engage in acts of trespass is not an argument against such a law, but against government abuses of power and in favor of enforcing laws against trespass even-handedly.
I didn’t argue it’s wrong only because it could be abused. More like it’s an abuse as it is and could be used for more abuse. Imagining it in the noblest light possible—as merely aiding the public’s wish to know—leaves us with a first amendment violation. We’d immediately see that if it applied the press or churches. Only our unthinking association of campaign contributions, even if they’re not actually going to a campaign, with corruption prevents us in this case.
There’s no reason your wanting to know who else paid for it should restrict me from broadcasting a political ad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.