Posted on 02/14/2002 3:43:21 PM PST by Map Kernow
"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." – The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
"The Senators and Representatives … shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." – Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." – 5 U.S.C. 3331
Rejected, 237-188, an amendment to H.R.2356 by House Majority Leader Dick Armey that stated that nothing in the bill could violate the First Amendment.
"The ability of unions, corporations and nonprofits to fund broadcast 'issue ads' would be restricted if the ads referred to a federal candidate and ran within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary." – Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2002, "Key Provisions: Shays-Meehan."
You are correct! None SHOULD be needed but just in case there are those who can't figure it out!
Every single member of congress, regardless of party affiliation, who voted for this abomination clearly SHOWED you their lack of regard for The United States Constitution and the oath of their office!
I know most folks don't care one way or another about this issue, but they WOULD if they knew the whole story! The American people still, by and large, believe in their rights if nothing else!
Just in case you are serious and just plain stupid I'll answer. "Free" speech refers to FREEDOM of speech. The ability to speak without hindrance from the government. "Free" speech is opposed to tyranny not to "paid" for speech. "Free" refers to ability not cost.
If the candidate won't listen to anyone who doesn't spend millions, whom do we punish the rights of the individuals or the corrupt candidate? The rationality for this law is akin to gun control with the idiotic assumption that if you outlaw guns there won't be outlaws. The only difference and it is large, is that if we outlaw speach ... who is going to talk about it?
According to SCOTUS, money is free speech. Handle it.
Not quite, money is speech and therefore people must be free to use it as they wish -- a subtle but important difference. Conversely, speech is much broader than money -- it doesn't require it, nor does it deny it.
Neither does free speech have anywhere near the potency at overcoming free speech that spending money has. Massa's in the house, all little people must talk in whispers.
Ideas attract money and money searches out good ideas, that's the nature of a free market system. Equating the advantage of money in politics to oppression by the wealthy is just more "envy politics" -- an extension the socialist ideal of "equal outcomes."
Inviting he government to control ANY form of speech will just invoke the law of unintended consequences and people will find new ways to circumvent the law and in four years we'll hear the cries of political corruption and "campaign finance reform" again. Its a FOOL's game but forntunately for the pols, there's an endless supply of fools.
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.