Time to amend the Constitution: Quickly
The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the Citizens United v. FEC case and return the First Amendment to its longstanding purpose as a guarantee of the fullest rights of a free people and the press. The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the fabrication by activist judges of a “corporate rights doctrine” to defeat democratically enacted laws, and will restore the First Amendment to its meaning and intent for two centuries. The Amendment will ensure that all people have the most robust freedom of conscience, speech and debate and that a vibrant, diverse press remains free and unfettered, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, democracy.
The Free Speech for People Amendment Campaign will work with others to develop specific language for the Free Speech for People Amendment. Here is one example of language for the Free Speech for People Amendment:
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.
Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
via What will the Free Speech for People Amendment say and what will it do? | freespeechforpeople.org.
Go to the site- sign-up and spread the word.
If you use Digg you might want to dig this up:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Solution_A_Free_Speech_for_People_Amendment_freespeec
This seems like a storm in a teacup, corporations have always been able to form political action committees and spend, spend, spend. Now the Republic is threatened because they don’t have to take that step? Sure the disclosure laws are significant for PACs, but there’s no reason they can’t be significant for corporate political speech, this recent opinion positively acknowledged that the government can regulate and require disclosure, they just can’t censor completely.
How effective do you think this ‘political speech’ would be: “Drilling in ANWAR is the coolest!! (paid for by Exxon)” ?
@jsults
The problem is that the ‘political speech’ would be:
“Drilling in ANWAR is the coolest!! (paid for by By Americans for America*)” ?
*buried at the bottom of their website- paid for in part by ExxonMobil
I think you are missing the point- it may grant the corporations the ability to give enough money to a candidate so that the message is from Mike Turner for Congress… no mention of the sponsor.
Either way- elections cost too much. We’re not getting our money’s worth. It’s bad enough with the lobbyists.
Dan, that was kind of my point, that’s what happens right now with PACs. If the corporation were funding the speech directly and their were disclosure requirements, then it would actually be more transparent in trying to figure out what special interest is paying for the commercial you are watching.
David:
Wouldn’t the candidate still have to disclose the source of donations, even if not on individual ads? Is that stuff disclosed before or after the election? From your daily show on the financials of running for office, it seems like that info is made public after the election (which is a little less useful).
Somebody sure is…
@Jstults- the finance reporting is almost impossible to really check out- all kinds of games played.
The whole thing needs to be scrapped. It’s cheaper for the taxpayer to pay for campaigns- and put them all on a level field.
The three most aggravating and annoying sounds to inflict the auditory canal are a first grader’s fingernails on a blackboard, the dentist firing up his drill, and the never ending whining of leftists on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Citizens United case. Eventually the seven year old gets bored and the dentist eventually goes home, but liberals have their burkas in a bundle 24 and 7 over this issue. The fact that this has been accepted case law since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall has no bearing on the Esrati-Olberman Outrage Axis, the constitution has to be amended quickly. Only problem with that is, the founders made it so that document cannot be easily or quickly changed. And neither left or right even considers a constitutional convention. The left is afraid the right will try to pack the document with amendments protecting school prayer and outlawing abortion. The rights is afraid the left will try to add amendments enshrining gay marraige and affirmative action. But of all the hyperbole coming out of the boo-hoo brigade, David, yours is far from being the most outrageous. That distinction goes to Marty Gottleib of the Dayton Daily News. Here is a guy who writes opinions in the employ of a giant corporation (Cox Publishing) who opines that other people working for corporations shouldn’t be able to express their opinions 30 days before an election. That kinda public hypocrisy requires either giant cajones, a sense of entitlement, a lack of shame, or all of the above. In Marty’s case, the Old Bandito believes it is all of the aforementioned….
@Bandito – Gottlieb get’s paid when pols buy ads from Cox. I don’t.
I say ban all donations. Back to Lincoln-Douglas style debates, and get everything in writing-
they screw up- we sue them.
Let the taxpayers buy the media- and deliver the forum. Screw the sound bite bs.
JAMIE RASKIN!!! JAMIE RASKIN!!!
David I may have pulled every hair out of my head on this one.
Professor Raskin taught one of the most radial law school courses that I ever attended.
Oh man is is almost as bad as the posting on the credibility of CREW.
Fav thing that Professor Raskin did at the Washington College of law was hold an annual “dinner party” for his students every year. Let your mind wander and you might get an idea of the credibility professionalism of the guy.
ACK and ICK (I sound like Bill-the-Cat!)
I like Faux news about as much as I do CNN. But here is an interesting link.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/
Here is an excerpt:
Thanks Will. That’s why I linked to the actual opinion over in the original thread on this topic. So much FUD can be so quickly dispensed with by going to the primary sources.
From another interesting article on the recent ruling: