"I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."
Wow, interesting ideal.
Hey, let's call it "free speech" and let's amend the Constitution to protect it. We should have an amendment which says that "Congress shall make no law which prohibits free speech". Then, we'd be good to go!
The campaign finance laws, as currently written, almost extinguish free speech as the individual citizen's voice is obliterated by the noise generated by union funds, corporate funds, media bias, government itself, etc.
A corporation or union should not have a voice louder than a citizen.
In my perfect world (they have not banned all thought yet), the only money allowed would be $xxxx per citizen. No unions, no corporate, no anything else but just individuals. That is the only way to "attempt" to protect free speech.
Why should the CSEA (communist, socialist, employee association) be allowed to drown out the voice of the taxpayers who pay their wages?
ConservativeDude wrote: "Wow, interesting ideal.
Hey, let's call it 'free speech' and let's amend the Constitution to protect it. We should have an amendment which says that 'Congress shall make no law which prohibits free speech'. Then, we'd be good to go!"
Oh, come on, ConservativeDude. You and I both know that campaign contributions were not what the the founders had on their minds when they wrote the First Amendment.
Their concern was that citizens should be free to speak out against the Government without fear of reprisal from it. And they didn't want to have an American version of the Church of England.
In their day, it didn't take a zillion dollars to run for political office, LOL!