Claiming that money is "speech" allows those with the most money all the
speech and denies those who don't have enough money to speak at all.
Legalized bribery, that's all campaign donations are.
Along the same lines, I not long ago listened to a liberal aquaintance talk
about how we need to get the money out of politics. I asked him simply, how
would you legally do that given the fact that the 1st Amendment allows free
political speech. And there has apparantly been rulings that money is a part of
speech. Makes sense. One can stand on the street corner and speak, or one can
buy advertising in a newspaper, magazine, or some other media outlet. My
aquaintance of course had no answer, but what troubles me most is, as George
Will said, that the liberals hate the Citizens United ruling. That leads me to
think that if liberals could, they would stifle any opposition speech. If true,
that makes liberal thinking very dangerous to our way of life and government.
And I find it especially ironic that the Democrats/liberals have used money to
get power every bit as much as Republicans. Obama, the first billion dollar
If trashing the flag is considered speech, so can spending money.
Because we all know that Warren Buffet and the 19 year old working at McDonalds
have the same speech. The same ability to get access to Congress or the
President. The same ability to influence elections and public debates. And
because there is no difference in these essential political functions, it should
be clear to all that money does not ALREADY give the wealthy greater speech in
America . . .Money as speech is a real problem for us folks.
Doesn't matter if your boogieman is George Soros or the Koch Brothers. Our
country does not need folks who already have gobs of speech (and a vote like
everyone else) even more access to power.
Where does government get the right to limit peoples first amendment rights?
People should remain free to organize and assemble in any way they see fit,
including pooling their resources.
I find it ironic that Mr. Will accuses liberals of trying to limit political
participation when conservative legislators in state after state are enacting
laws limiting early voting and making voter registration more difficult because
higher voter turnouts have hurt GOP candidates.
Limiting political speech should just be left to the IRS>
Will makes some unsubstantiated logical leaps on the way to his conclusion that
"Liberals who love the regulatory state loathe Citizens United." (This
conclusion that liberals are pushing for limitations on political speech was
echoed in the headline for this column in the print edition of the DesNews.)
The laws the judges overturned were in Mississippi and Arizona, hardly bastions
of liberalism. They were state laws, which the conservative champions of
federalism tell us is where governmental power should be based. If anything,
Will's examples point to an effort by conservatives, not liberals, to
stifle political speech. It's further ironic that he champions the
judiciary (activist judges?) for overturning the laws when conservatives have
generally placed the legislature above the judiciary as representing the
"true will of the people," at least when the subject is gay marriage.
Will's focus is selective. As Danite Boy pointed out, conservative efforts
to limit voter registration and access to the polls is an egregious and overt
attempt to restrict political participation (as is GOP opposition to immigration
reform, which is perceived as a means to create more Democratic voters).
Money is PowerMoney is BabylonMoney is the GadiantonsMoney is
the root of all evil.
@Lagomorph"...Will's focus is selective...".He is a paid entertainer for fox news...It is FAIR and BALANCED
for him to be selective.
Open minded....It is the LOVE of money that is the root of all
evil.Plenty of persons have lots of money and are generous, believe
in philanthropy, and help others a great deal. Government never understands
this. In fact, government would prefer nothing ever be said by anyone and
that's what you had with communism.
Translation: "Rich people should be free to buy elections, just as the
George Will arguing in favor of unions! Will wonders never cease?
I loathe all the dodgy tv ads during an election, thanks to CU. This is not
empowering people in the political process, but the opposite.
The right to speak freely is guaranteed to everyone by the 1st Amendment, not
just to those who are members of a union, to those whose political party is in
office, or to those with whom you agree. Corporations are "people".
They are owned by "people". They are run by "people". To think
that "people" should not be allowed to speak just because they have a
common interest would prohibit unions from supporting a candidate or collecting
dues that end up in the campaign coffers of a candidate.The
Constitution puts no limit on how we spend our money, individually or
collectively. Those who think that it does have not read that document.
I wish we didn't even have elections.We should just like the
Koch bros and rich people decide everything.
@LagomorthIts not flawed logic when you take a look at what these
ruling will do to states like Delaware, Maryland, Mass., or Conneticut the
liberal bastions. You think the requirements in Arizona and MS sounded tough
wait till you see the changes to the political landscape when citizens start
setting up townhalls and PACs to change the status quo up there (its already
happening and thats what has Dems scared). The CU decision is destroying the
political strong hold that have held states like Mass, Mich, Wisc, Conn, and
others hostage for years. As far as the judiciary goes, the right
of free speech has been around for centuries. Same sex marraige never existed
in humankind until a couple of years ago. Where is the precedent for allowing
such a distortion of marraige? There isn't one!
I am absolutely bewildered that our resident experts in Constitutional
Originalism can argue that corporate personhood was intended to extend beyond
its original purpose to make and enforce contracts. It strains my
reading of "We the People" in the Constitution's Preamble to
include megacorporations in that phrase.I search in vain for any
suggestion from the Founding Fathers, with their emphasis on egalitarianism,
that corporations have an equal right to individuals with respect to free speech
in the form of legalized bribes.It blows my mind that those who
scream that the Republic is in mortal peril everytime Obama sneezes can argue
with a straight face that the voice of the average American isn't being
drowned by a jaw-dropping flood of campaign monies doled out by multi-billion
dollar corporations.I find Mr. Will's argument to be absolute
anathema to a democratic republic. The Citizens United decision is the most
activist SCOTUS opinion in the last decade, a reversal of constraints on
corporatism going back to Teddy Roosevelt, and a complete contradiction of Chief
Justice Robert's proclaimed approach of judicial minimalism.
@The Hammer --"Same sex marraige never existed in
humankind..."Actually, same-sex unions have been recognized in
various cultures for literally thousands of years. Here's just
a few examples:-- in ancient Rome, same-sex marriages, complete with
traditional rites, were not uncommon. Gay marriages weren't officially
prohibited in the Roman empire until around 300 AD.--Same-sex unions
were recognized in Mesopotamia (see the book Homosexuality in the Ancient
World).--Ancient Assyrian religious texts included blessings for
same-sex unions, and treated them as equal to opposite-sex unions. --Same-sex unions were recognized in some parts of China for centuries,
including contracts and elaborate ceremonies (see the books Passions of the Cut
Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China and also The origins and role of
same-sex relations in human societies ).--In more modern times,
check the paper "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France:
The Uses of the Affrement" for examples of legal unions in medieval
France.--Same-sex unions were widely recognized in Native American
societies.-- some Polynesian cultures revered a "third
gender" and gave them an honored place in their societies.There's more, but I'm out of space!
You Forgot Sodom And Gomorrah
@The Hammer --"You Forgot Sodom And Gomorrah"I
don't know of any evidence that same-sex marriages were recognized in
either Sodom or Gomorrah. Do you?And besides -- Sodom and Gomorrah
was more about arrogance and inhospitality than about homosexuality, in any
case."Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and
her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not
help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations
before Me." (Ezekiel 16:49-50Yes, I know lots of Christians have
been taught that Sodom was all about homosexuality. That doesn't mean