The question that started it all

[BT]

The constitution provides for equal protection under the law, and from that we have public defenders.

Would it not follow that if free speech was a right, and money is speech, then if you can not afford to speak then the government would provide that capability?

And doesn't it all boil down to the meaning of the words in the constitution?

So if money is not explicitly equated to speech in the constitution, yet i have seen nothing but arguments saying money is speech, how can we say with certainty that Obamacare is unconstitutional, since words mean what they mean at their last interpretation.

What is the constitutional authorization for the CDC? What is the Constitutional authorization for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?  How did we arrive at the conclusion that corporations or any legal entity like unions or PACs have the same rights as John Doe, but an unborn child is just a fetus?


That was the point of this thread.

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Is a hive mentality , government or is it anarchy?

========================================
I would say that bees and ants are programmed to be governed and be governed by genetics.

Money is not speech. Most often, money pays C (a media outlet) to publicize the campaign rhetoric of A (the candidate) as written by B (his speechwriter/ handler).

If we are to have fair elections, "fair" being everyone gets an equal opportunity to be heard by the electorate, then the present system is defective. If Ross Perot, for example, had not had millions to put forth his plan, no one in the media would have taken him seriously: he would have been a weird little pipsqueak that sounded like a backwoods hick, ranting and waving charts about in a thin, reedy voice. As it is, despite his erratic antics during the campaign, he got 21% of the vote.

We recently elected Rick Scott, a medical healthcare executive and unindicted swindler, governor of Florida because he had an adequate supply of loot left over from his swindling days to buy the election, which was split among three candidates. We also had a mortgage swindler named Green that almost bought the Democratic nomination for Senator. Florida will not be govered better because of these two men. Their money only served to get less competent people elected.

[Plane]

Time is speech.

Suppose i give you a platform for your speech , but only for a single minute.

I think it obvious that more time would be more speech.

Also if I am king and allow you to say anything you wish but restrict the amount you may spend on it I have directly restricted your freedom to speak.

A reasonable resstriction might be a restriction that prevented all night shouting so that the people can get some sleep , or a size and duration limit on sinage that might become obsticles to seeing around the corner or otherwise obstruct traffic.

Why are we going to restrict speech by restricting the money spent on it? Is public safety affected by more expensive ads or more TV time devoted to elections?

I think a restriction of speech IS a restriction of speech whether you are restricting the volume of it or restricting the time spent on it or the money spent on it.
  There is no need to discuss what is ment by "IS" or to reinterpret the words of the constitution as they were intended the day they were written.

When the constitution was written there was no effort or intent to make every man a newspaper publisher , I think the origional intent was to prevent the government from choosing who would become a newspaper publisher or who would not.

[sirs]

With the major problem with the approach of "Public Financing", being the MSM.  You can't have "fair" elections, if the MSM predominately shapes the issues and perception of candidates, and they're the ones that have unlimited resources to do so, both in print and over the airwaves.  Specifically in casting Democrats/Liberals and their causes as sincere & worthy, while Republicans/Conservatives are most often painted as greedy, heartless, and insincere.  And we won't even bring up the Constitution and how it is blatantly ignored to embrace the latest, greatest Government intervention

So, until the MSM return to their roots of simply reporting the news, Public Financing of candidates have no chance of becoming SOP

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, time is not speech. Time may set the limits of some messages, but time is not speech.

Money is not speech either. Hiring someone else to package your message and a third person to air your 30 second negative message three dozen times is not speech that is useful to any political process.

[Plane]

Let me try to shorten my point.

Restriction on anything that a right requires, is, a restriction on the right.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The poor are greatly restricted from political speech. They can stand on the corner and rant. They cannot pay to put their rants into nifty advertising packages and air them every thirty mutes on primetime TV as David Koch can.

As I said, Ross Perot attracted attention mostly because of the vast amount of money he put into his campaign. The same with Rick Scott.

You do not have the freedom of speech they have, and neither do I.

[Plane]

You do not have the freedom of speech they have, and neither do I.

I can contribute to an organisation I agree with which then by dint of appealing to a large group can make my POV widely heard.

The NRA buys a lot of speech , that sort of thing doesn't need the restriction it was threatened with.

[BT]

With the major problem with the approach of "Public Financing", being the MSM.  You can't have "fair" elections, if the MSM predominately shapes the issues and perception of candidates, and they're the ones that have unlimited resources to do so, both in print and over the airwaves.  Specifically in casting Democrats/Liberals and their causes as sincere & worthy, while Republicans/Conservatives are most often painted as greedy, heartless, and insincere.  And we won't even bring up the Constitution and how it is blatantly ignored to embrace the latest, greatest Government intervention

So, until the MSM return to their roots of simply reporting the news, Public Financing of candidates have no chance of becoming SOP

Sounds like you are making an argument for the Fairness Doctrine.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am thinking that the NRA is not going to bat for you if you want it to continue support for funding NASA.

[sirs]

With the major problem with the approach of "Public Financing", being the MSM.  You can't have "fair" elections, if the MSM predominately shapes the issues and perception of candidates, and they're the ones that have unlimited resources to do so, both in print and over the airwaves.  Specifically in casting Democrats/Liberals and their causes as sincere & worthy, while Republicans/Conservatives are most often painted as greedy, heartless, and insincere.  And we won't even bring up the Constitution and how it is blatantly ignored to embrace the latest, greatest Government intervention

So, until the MSM return to their roots of simply reporting the news, Public Financing of candidates have no chance of becoming SOP

Sounds like you are making an argument for the Fairness Doctrine.

sounds like I'm not, actually, since I have NEVER ADVOCATED THE MANDATE OF ANY EQUALIZATION OF THE PRESS/MSM

Just so that we're clear.  I realize how you like to assume things about my POV that are no where near the case...intolerance for Muslims, Fairness Doctrine, etc

It's far more that I advocate full disclosure for anyone to purchase any amount of airtime they wish, and screw the MSM bias.  My point is that there won't be Public Financing, because there won't be any attempt by the MSM to return to the roots of what they're supposed to be

[BT]

My point is that there won't be Public Financing, because there won't be any attempt by the MSM to return to the roots of what they're supposed to be

I'm not sure why you brought public financing into the mix, but your claim that it will fail because of MSM bias also means that private financing is failing. Right?

[sirs]

Yea..it's failing...because it's not being allowed to be "private financing"  Public Financing was brought in because of Xo's implied need for it, to supposedly better the "fairness" of lesser candidates

[BT]

Yea..it's failing...because it's not being allowed to be "private financing"

Why not. A cursory perusal of Opensecrets.org indicates an overabundance of private financing in the form of corporate, union and PAC consolidations.

Wasn't it you claiming California was lost because of the financial superiority of its unions in controlling the debate?

[Plane]

I am thinking that the NRA is not going to bat for you if you want it to continue support for funding NASA.

That is the planetary society.http://www.planetary.org/home/