Constitutional Amendment

[morriswalters 16]

An Amendment to define individual citizens as the only source of funding for elections, and to restrict the funding of special interest groups to the donations made by the individual members.

What do you think?  A return to individual democracy or a train wreck for free speech?

[Duke87 1,070]

Personally, it's not corporate contributions that bother me so much as it's out-of-constituency contributions. A lot of money poured in from outside of California for campaigns for and against Prop 8. A lot of money poured in from outside of Massachusetts for both Brown and Coakley. This is disgusting. Any election is only the business of the people who will be voting in it.

That said, good luck ammending the constitution on either matter. Doubt it would get enough support...

[chicah 20]

Sounds like a good one to me. Lobbyism has gone way too far. Although the interest-question can still remain with individuals giving money, and I'm sure individuals can gather money from an interest group to give to the campaign in question. So not sure it would have an actual effect.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The US electorate is corrupted, stagnating, and slowly dying. We have become Rome. Unless we can break the restraints of the current, ignorant situation, we WILL fall behind the rest of the world and we will slowly fade away into irrelevancy.

Barbarossaquote>

A very good parallel. Beer and circuses seem to be what the average American wants, so they get it and the oligarchy continues to run the country as it wishes.

Some of the main causes for the fall of Rome:

* Dissolution of the family unit;

* Loss of religious ethic;

* Corruption of officials.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

A heady topic.

My point of view is simple. Corporations are not people and should not enjoy the benefits. I do not think that corporations should be allowed to contribute any funds for an election, nor do I think they should have rights to create a PAC. I am all for supporting business, but I will never support them in the arena of influencing how we run our government. Never. A business is a business, a human is a human.

An Amendment would be nice, but the circumstances to achieve it makes it nearly impossible to deliver. The US electorate is corrupted, stagnating, and slowly dying. We have become Rome. Unless we can break the restraints of the current, ignorant situation, we WILL fall behind the rest of the world and we will slowly fade away into irrelevancy.

Barbarossaquote>

 I would also add to this that media outlets should not be allowed to endorse candidates either.

[confused04 14]

I'm gonna have to disagree with a lot of the statements here....

Should there be campaign finance limitations... yes, don't get me wrong there. Should there be campaign restrictions from big donors, yes.

BUT, should corporations not be allowed to donate? No. Free speech is free speech, regardless of what group/individual it is. I am disappointed at the Supreme Courts decision, but I don't think that any one, regardless of popularity, size, structure, or wealth should be restricted from financing a campaign. The main problem with campaign finance is just enforcing what we have on the books. Lobbyists cannot give gifts or even buy meals for Congress members, but does that stop them from finding loop holes, of course not.

My main issue with a constitutional amendment is defining "corporations" and "special interests." At what point is a non-profits donations more or less moral than a large company? What is a "large company". What about unions? What about organized labor not in unions (i.e. not official)? Why can't individuals come together as a group and donate?

Perhaps this is my libertarian side coming out, but the idea of restricting donations with a constitutional amendment is somewhat scary. I'm not arguing that there is no problem with the current campaign finance system, but I'm not in any way supportive of banning financing from "non-individuals", nor do I have any alternative solutions besides a no-nonsense approach to current federal, state, and local laws.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by: confused04

I'm gonna have to disagree with a lot of the statements here....

Should there be campaign finance limitations... yes, don't get me wrong there. Should there be campaign restrictions from big donors, yes.

BUT, should corporations not be allowed to donate? No. Free speech is free speech, regardless of what group/individual it is. I am disappointed at the Supreme Courts decision, but I don't think that any one, regardless of popularity, size, structure, or wealth should be restricted from financing a campaign. The main problem with campaign finance is just enforcing what we have on the books. Lobbyists cannot give gifts or even buy meals for Congress members, but does that stop them from finding loop holes, of course not.

My main issue with a constitutional amendment is defining "corporations" and "special interests." At what point is a non-profits donations more or less moral than a large company? What is a "large company". What about unions? What about organized labor not in unions (i.e. not official)? Why can't individuals come together as a group and donate?

Perhaps this is my libertarian side coming out, but the idea of restricting donations with a constitutional amendment is somewhat scary. I'm not arguing that there is no problem with the current campaign finance system, but I'm not in any way supportive of banning financing from "non-individuals", nor do I have any alternative solutions besides a no-nonsense approach to current federal, state, and local laws.quote>

Sorry about the confused posts.

By the beginning of the 19th century, government policy on both sides of the Atlantic began to change, reflecting the growing popularity of the proposition that corporations were riding the economic wave of the future. In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights they had not previously recognized or enjoyed.^[12] Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable", and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments.^[13] The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.^[14]

This is from a wikipedia article on Corporations.

And you expect me to compete with that?  How do you compete?  An individual, no matter how wealthy, can only exert so much power alone.  Corporations as immortal "people", composed of people who, at the whim of the managers, must do what they are told.  Ownership is diffuse and difficult to discern.(just ask the Justice Department and the IRS).  So pardon me if I dismiss that argument.

How do you propose to enforce those laws.  Each one, one after another will now come under attack.

The amendment that I proposed is straight forward and simple.  The only people who should have rights are citizens.  I explicitly state that the only limitation for special interests is that their money actually come from their members as direct contributions.  One complaint about unions  is that the money spent doesn't always reflect the wishes of their members.

Amendments were made difficult to pass so that nothing could be done in the heat of the moment.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Corporations are like bee hives, only the Queen gets to vote.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Corporations are like bee hives, only the Queen gets to vote.quote>

Not if it's a publically traded company. Then the shareholders have a say. And the public at large can always "vote" by boycotting the company if they don't like something that it's doing. As for the workers, they can always go on strike or vote with their feet.

Yes, obviously people with more money (such as CEOs) will have more capacity to donate to campaigns and whatnot. So what? They have every right to express their opinion (free speech) that way. Putting limits on that was unconstitutional and the court made the right ruling.

Amending the constitution would be the way to change that, but again... I don't see it happening.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[morriswalters 16]

Interesting take on how things work there Duke87.  Shareholders oppose management and override them. I'll have to think about that as soon as I get over the choking fit the idea caused. Oh, a boycott.  I like it!  How would I boycott Halliburton?  Oh right, don't buy oilfield services.  OH yeah and I could picket the CEO's home, Oh I forgot, he lives in Dubai, because he wants to focus his business.  Workers vote with their feet.  Would that be the US workers, or perhaps those workers that got those jobs that were created when they were relocated out of the country for that needed competitive edge.  But sarcasm aside, given the fact that companies are ruled by the bottom line and feel no particular compunction to support the US if their interests are not affected, why would I want them to have a voice.  The day of the simple corporation is long gone, today is the era of the multinational.  Gm expects that their largest market will be China eventually.  When that happens do you think that they would be open to pressure from the Chinese?

The point of this post was to provoke discussion, not to pass the proposed amendment. 

If I wished to pass a constitutional amendment or monkeyfart with the political system here's what I would do.  Infiltrate a movement, the tea party comes to mind.  It doesn't really matter as long as they are either really angry or really hurting and frightened.  Study the movement and find their hot button issues.  Behavioral Science is  used to great effect in advertising.  Find a proxy, somebody with  a Steely gaze and a well modulated voice, or assume that role yourself, you just have to project sincerity and trust and be able to deliver speeches which fan the flames.  Raise the temperature, a lot.  The louder a conversation the less likely that people will hear what's being said.  Find some easy political targets and crush them.  Demonize your opponents, never let them be seen as people.  Whisper campaigns, email spam, YouTube videos, what have you, remember the idea is to win the game, truth is useful only when it serves you, else use a lie.  If you control the dialog and say it loud enough it becomes the truth.  Create a provocation, a martyr  might be nice, people love them.  Find the intelligence in the movement, and either subvert them or remove them.  You don't want people who can think.  Well, I think you get the idea.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

A constitutional amendment voiding the court's decision would not be a good idea, since it would give the government an unethical power to violate the freedom of expression (as what happened with the FEC and the Hillary movie).

The amendment you're proposing, restricting the funding of groups and campaigns to individuals, might be a good idea, although I'm not exactly passionate either way. What I do hold is that the government should not possess the power to censor advertisements it deems to be political, as it did in this case. The funding of campaigns is a different matter.

Of course, the only reason that the companies would want to fund campaigns is due to the immense power that the American government has accumulated over the years over the companies and real people. If most of that power over the populace was stripped away, as in a liberal government, then there would be no incentive to develop such a system of corporatism (in the fascist sense) with total government.

To restrict funding and advertising would simply give the government more power that they should not have, and not only that, it is a lazy way out to avoid getting to the root of the problem -- the immense power that they try to buy.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

A constitutional amendment voiding the court's decision would not be a good idea, since it would give the government an unethical power to violate the freedom of expression (as what happened with the FEC and the Hillary movie).

The amendment you're proposing, restricting the funding of groups and campaigns to individuals, might be a good idea, although I'm not exactly passionate either way. What I do hold is that the government should not possess the power to censor advertisements it deems to be political, as it did in this case. The funding of campaigns is a different matter.

Of course, the only reason that the companies would want to fund campaigns is due to the immense power that the American government has accumulated over the years over the companies and real people. If most of that power over the populace was stripped away, as in a liberal government, then there would be no incentive to develop such a system of corporatism (in the fascist sense) with total government.

To restrict funding and advertising would simply give the government more power that they should not have, and not only that, it is a lazy way out to avoid getting to the root of the problem -- the immense power that they try to buy.

quote>

In no way would the amendment proscribe what could be said, only how it's paid for.  Speech is never free, it's delusional to believe it is.  If you stand in the town square you can say anything you like(theoretically).  However if I put a loudspeaker next to you and play the Star Spangled Banner with the volume pushed all the way up, who can hear you.  Is that free speech.  The only intent of this amendment would be to lower the volume so my voice can be heard.

The argument in the last two paragraphs is a logical absurdity.  Governments must be strong to accomplish their functions, weak governments fall.  There are any number of examples of weak government on the planet, governments which can't protect their citizens or provide any of the functions that you would expect.  You fear strong government when what you should fear is a weak electorate.  It can be easily argued that a governments strength grows in a direct response to the ability of it's population to make informed choices.  It's power reflects the inverse of that same relationship.  A weak electorate produces a powerful government.

And to your final point I'll respond by pointing you to a link, and ask you exactly who's buying what?  By the way the amendment I propose wouldn't forbid this.

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-16-grisham-court_N.htm

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Speech is never free, it's delusional to believe it is.quote>

!

If you stand in the town square you can say anything you like(theoretically).  However if I put a loudspeaker next to you and play the Star Spangled Banner with the volume pushed all the way up, who can hear you.  Is that free speech.  The only intent of this amendment would be to lower the volume so my voice can be heard.quote>

Interesting concept, but the problem then is who's deciding how loud is to loud. If people collectively complain that you're blasting your music too loud, that's one thing. But legislating it? No.

Governments must be strong to accomplish their functions, weak governments fall. There are any number of examples of weak government on the planet, governments which can't protect their citizens or provide any of the functions that you would expect.quote>

Well, obviously the government can't be utterly powerless, then you have anarchy. The concept of "keep the government weak" isn't about emaciating the government down to the point where it's too weak to function. It's about keeping the government from becoming too powerful by restricting its power to only what is necessary.

It can be easily argued that a governments strength grows in a direct response to the ability of it's population to make informed choices.quote>

Er... what? The ability of people to make informed choices is important, but that does not make the government stronger, it makes the individual stronger.

A weak electorate produces a powerful government.quote>

This is true.

What I don't get is how that's the inverse of the previous statement. Looks like a contradiction of it to me...

And to your final point I'll respond by pointing you to a link, and ask you exactly who's buying what?  By the way the amendment I propose wouldn't forbid this.quote>

An interesting story. Obviously there is a conflict of interest there.

The solution to that problem, however, is to merely mandate that elected judges not preside over cases involving parties who funded their campaign - not to restrict the campaign funding.

Rule of thumb: do not try to fix any problem by restricting the actions of the people when a solution that instead restricts the actions of government is available.

[JanYpe 17]

Rule of thumb: do not try to fix any problem by restricting the actions of the people when a solution that instead restricts the actions of government is available.quote>

Haha, yes it's much better allow yourself to constantly get screwed by companies than to allow the possibility that the big evil government might possibly someday decide to do something. You guys have to be the most hilarious proletariat ever.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Haha, yes it's much better allow yourself to constantly get screwed by companies than to allow the possibility that the big evil government might possibly someday decide to do something. quote>

It's a basic philosophical difference.  Some people believe government is going to help them.  Others believe it's more likely to screw things up.  As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

You guys have to be the most hilarious proletariat ever.

quote>

Yeah, we're so hilarious that we don't even use the word proletariat.

That word feels kinda Marxist over here so it didn't really make it across the pond.

But that's probably just a translation issue. 

Except that it doesn't feel like a translation issue.  There is another philosophical difference in there somewhere.

At any rate, if there was going to be a Constituational amendment, what would it say?   Granted the original did have a funky way of defining the word "person" but that has been amended.   The issue of campaign financing isn't really addressed.

Wouldn't it be easier to adapt the current laws so that rich corporations can't overwhelm the campaign funding?  But, since lobbyists have most of Congress under their thumb, that isn't going to happen.

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Haha, yes it's much better allow yourself to constantly get screwed by companies than to allow the possibility that the big evil government might possibly someday decide to do something. quote>

It is worth pointing out that there is currently nothing in the constitution which explicitly restricts the rights of the people. The only thing that ever violated that precedent was prohibition, which turned out to be a huge disaster and embarassment - one of the greater blemishes on American history, in fact.

Point being, the constitution is about defining the powers of government and guaranteeing the rights of the people. Using it to restrict rather than guarantee rights is a road we don't want to go down.

As for companies screwing people over, that's different from government screwing people over because there you have a personal choice. If Coca-Cola is screwing me over, I can go buy Pepsi instead, and it's as simple as picking up a different bottle off the shelf. If the government is screwing me over, switching governments means moving to another country - not so simple or easy. I can choose to disapprove of Wal-Mart's business pracitces and refuse to shop there. But if I disapprove of the government's practices, I cannot refuse to pay my taxes.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by:

Duke87

Originally posted by:

morriswalters

Speech is never free, it's delusional to believe it is.quote>

!

If you stand in the town square you can say anything you like(theoretically).  However if I put a loudspeaker next to you and play the Star Spangled Banner with the volume pushed all the way up, who can hear you.  Is that free speech.  The only intent of this amendment would be to lower the volume so my voice can be heard.quote>

Interesting concept, but the problem then is who's deciding how loud is to loud. If people collectively complain that you're blasting your music too loud, that's one thing. But legislating it? No.

I'll except any volume level that you can produce with your own throat.

Governments must be strong to accomplish their functions, weak governments fall. There are any number of examples of weak government on the planet, governments which can't protect their citizens or provide any of the functions that you would expect.quote>

Well, obviously the government can't be utterly powerless, then you have anarchy. The concept of "keep the government weak" isn't about emaciating the government down to the point where it's too weak to function. It's about keeping the government from becoming too powerful by restricting its power to only what is necessary.

 

?"Interesting concept, but the problem then is who's deciding how loud is to loud what is necessary."  Don't tell me I did it, and then turn right around and do it yourself.

 

It can be easily argued that a governments strength grows in a direct response to the ability of it's population to make informed choices.quote>

Er... what? The ability of people to make informed choices is important, but that does not make the government stronger, it makes the individual stronger.

Define political strength as the ability to do the required functions with the minimum of power by controlling where power will be applied.  This is much what an engineer does when he tries to improve the ability of a car to protect it's passenger in a collision while at the same time reducing it's weight..

A weak electorate produces a powerful government.quote>

This is true.

What I don't get is how that's the inverse of the previous statement. Looks like a contradiction of it to me...

 

When the electorate  cedes power to the government by being unprepared to expend the effort required to provide the guidence a strong government needs, the government reacts by substituting power for strength.  See if you can visualize this.  See the electorate as a fulcrum.  When the electorate takes the responsibility, it moves closer to the load, and the government needs less power because of the strength derived from the position of the electorate.  When the electorate is unwilling to to do the work they move closer to the government and it in turn must use more power to gain the effect desired.

And to your final point I'll respond by pointing you to a link, and ask you exactly who's buying what?  By the way the amendment I propose wouldn't forbid this.quote>

An interesting story. Obviously there is a conflict of interest there.

The solution to that problem, however, is to merely mandate that elected judges not preside over cases involving parties who funded their campaign - not to restrict the campaign funding.

Rule of thumb: do not try to fix any problem by restricting the actions of the people when a solution that instead restricts the actions of government is available.

 

?Your arguing a point I didn't raise, in point of fact the admendment  wouldn't restrict this since he used his own money. I simply pointed it out to illustrate the role money plays in politics.  The other guy argues that he simply wanted to get rid of the judge he didn't like , not to buy off the guy who got elected.  Ubder the definition of free speech that seems to be used a lot this makes perfect sense.

quote>

 

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Rule of thumb: do not try to fix any problem by restricting the actions of the people when a solution that instead restricts the actions of government is available.quote>

Haha, yes it's much better allow yourself to constantly get screwed by companies than to allow the possibility that the big evil government might possibly someday decide to do something. You guys have to be the most hilarious proletariat ever.

quote>

Maybe the fact the a large numbers of our population came to this country when their governments failed to provide the minimum requirements for life, forcing them to give up everything to achieve what they couldn't in the place of their birth, is the reason we distrust government.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

?"Interesting concept, but the problem then is who's deciding how loud is to loud what is necessary."  Don't tell me I did it, and then turn right around and do it yourself.quote>

What is "necessary" is, granted, subjective. That is why we debate before we decide. Note how we are debating the necessity of a constitional amendment banning campaing funding by corporations here.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Maybe the fact the a large numbers of our population came to this country when their governments failed to provide the minimum requirements for life, forcing them to give up everything to achieve what they couldn't in the place of their birth, is the reason we distrust government.quote>

Hardly. Think about it.

Consider that the first colonists came here because the English Crown would not let them freely practice their religion.

Consider that this country was founded because people were oppressed by "the big nasty evil government" of George III.

Consider that many of our founding fathers had a significant Libertarian streak in their philosophy.

Distrusting government has been an American legacy since the very beginning, before the waves of Immigration.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If nothing else, corporate political donations need to be transparent. The source of funds must be explicit and clear.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by:

Duke87

Originally posted by:

morriswalters

?"Interesting concept, but the problem then is who's deciding

how loud is to loud

what is necessary."  Don't tell me I did it, and then turn right around and do it yourself.quote>

What is "necessary" is, granted, subjective. That is why we debate before we decide. Note how we are

debating

the necessity of a constitional amendment banning campaing funding by corporations here.

 

I stated my position in 31 words, give or take,  It was straightforward and direct.  You can't debate a subjective as there is no possible counter argument.  Debate this.  Blue is the prettiest color.

Originally posted by:

morriswalters

Maybe the fact the a large numbers of our population came to this country when their governments failed to provide the minimum requirements for life, forcing them to give up everything to achieve what they couldn't in the place of their birth, is the reason we distrust government.quote>

Hardly. Think about it.

Consider that the first colonists came here because the English Crown would not let them freely practice their religion.

Consider that this country was founded because people were oppressed by "the big nasty evil government" of George III.

Consider that many of our founding fathers had a significant Libertarian streak in their philosophy.

Distrusting government has been an American legacy since the very beginning, before the waves of Immigration.

quote>

 

The first was true for some but not all.

The English might debate that.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The founders recognized that government was essential to securing those rights they spoke of.  They also recognized where that power originated from. 

I point out to you that unless a person can claim a Native American Ancestry, we are all the children of immigrants.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

I stated my position in 31 words, give or take,  It was straightforward and direct. You can't debate a subjective as there is no possible counter argument. Debate this.  Blue is the prettiest color.quote>

Your example of pretty colors is one where it's entirely a matter of subjective opinion, and thus, yes, cannot be "debated".

But matters such as your constitutional amendment, or whether or not the givernment should do something - while they are also matters of subjective opinion, it is possible to make objective arguments in their favor, so it's a different story.

Consider this statement: "I like blue because _______." Can't put much in the blank, can you? There's no making an argument.

Now consider this statement: "I think the government should do this because ______." Now the blank is fillable, and debate is thus possible!

Indeed, this thread is a debate on the merits of your amendment. Or did you think it would just be everyone stating their opinion, never responding to each other?

I point out to you that unless a person can claim a Native American Ancestry, we are all the children of immigrants.quote>

Semantics. Generally, those who came here from England in the colonial era are thought of as "colonists" or "settlers", not "immigrants". That's the definition I'm using when I say "before the waves of immigration".

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: morriswalters

I stated my position in 31 words, give or take,  It was straightforward and direct. You can't debate a subjective as there is no possible counter argument. Debate this.  Blue is the prettiest color.quote>

Your example of pretty colors is one where it's entirely a matter of subjective opinion, and thus, yes, cannot be "debated".

But matters such as your constitutional amendment, or whether or not the givernment should do something - while they are also matters of subjective opinion, it is possible to make objective arguments in their favor, so it's a different story.

Consider this statement: "I like blue because _______." Can't put much in the blank, can you? There's no making an argument.

Now consider this statement: "I think the government should do this because ______." Now the blank is fillable, and debate is thus possible!

Indeed, this thread is a debate on the merits of your amendment. Or did you think it would just be everyone stating their opinion, never responding to each other?

I point out to you that unless a person can claim a Native American Ancestry, we are all the children of immigrants.quote>

Semantics. Generally, those who came here from England in the colonial era are thought of as "colonists" or "settlers", not "immigrants". That's the definition I'm using when I say "before the waves of immigration".

quote>

I'm probably wasting my time but I'll try once more.  this link is to Wikipedia's article on debate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

You can decide wether it applies.  In the context of defending my position  I pointed out that you accused me of using a subjective definition and then used one yourself.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  I feel no compelling urge to "win" this debate, that was never my point.  the point was to invite discussion about I topic which inspires passion in me.  I find it useful to occasionally be challenged and forced to defend things I believe in.  Sometimes when that happens I find that some cherished position is wrong and I am forced to reevaluate.  However I gain nothing in this context because there appears to me that you present no real counter argument.  Since you enjoy attacking my analogy instead of my idea I will be direct.   How much government is required and why would my amendment  affect any individuals right to free speech?  If you choose to respond the discussion can continue if your interested,  if not I have said everything that I needed to say and will let others speak to it if they wish.

Semantics can be very important, however I will use any definition as long as you explicitly state it when used.  Otherwise I defer to the Dictionary, in this case Merriam-Webster.

Main Entry: im·mi·grant

Pronunciation: \?i-m?-gr?nt\

Function: noun

Date: 1789

: one that immigrates: as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

— immigrant adjective

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

this link is to Wikipedia's article on debate. You can decide wether it applies. quote>

Okay, fine. If we must use strict literal definitions and not permit common parlance, call it "discussion" then.

In the context of defending my position  I pointed out that you accused me of using a subjective definition and then used one yourself.  Perhaps I'm wrong.quote>

Ah, okay. I see the problem here. My statement was misinterpreted. The statement was:

"Interesting concept, but the problem then is who's deciding how loud is to loud."

This is not an accusation of subjectivity. This is stating disapproval with having the government make such a decision.

How much government is requiredquote>

That question has no concrete answer. "Minimal" is unspecific, but still a generally good answer if you ask me. As for the specifics, well, take it on a case by case basis. Discuss it, come to some sort of consensus. That's how Democracy works.

and why would my amendment  affect any individuals right to free speech? quote>

An individual's right? Not at all. The right of a collective group of people (e.g. a corporation)? Well, the effect is the same as if such restrictions were to be placed on individuals.

But at any rate, that's a smaller problem. My biggest concern is the use of the constitution to place restrictions on any party other than the government. This particular issue is small fry in terms of rights restriction, but it would set a bad precedent.

I will use any definition as long as you explicitly state it when used.  Otherwise I defer to the Dictionaryquote>

Or, how about... *ghostly Obi-Wan voice* Use the context, Luke!

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Without getting into language usage drama or picking over each point post by post....

Naturally, I'm going to come down closer to the more conservative/libertarian-ish side, I agree with Duke and N_O, and I believe Barbarossa and I have the same opinion for (radically) different reasons. The electorate is intellectually and socially weak, IMO. Now, let's focus the Supreme Court decision on the upcoming midterms, with all constraints off of lobbyists from both right and left. Who has the money, and who are they going to court? Yeah, a bad midterm for Dems just got a lot worse.

 But hang on a sec, is this really a good thing? This plays right into fears of socialism/fascism, corporate interests love to interfere in gov't as much as vice versa. A strengthening of money's power in Washington serves to only undermine the power of the individual, the regular guy. Give it 10 years, and it's 10 bucks a can for Cadre Cola... it hits the spot!

No, my friends from all sides of the spectrum, I don't believe this decision by the SC is a good omen. Even more so with the guaranteed rise of public financing, which sounds excellent in theory but in practice is fraught with just as much peril to the Republic. Take the king's shilling, dance to the king's tune?

Too many hands connected to the process, each still looking for a loophole or sleight-of-hand to gain an advantage. What about true fringe candidates taking advantage of free public cash? Do you want a dime of taxpayer money going to David Duke, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, or some other wackjob who knows they won't win but can't resist the platform to 'get their message out'? You can't legislate them out of the process if one is created. Lyndon LaRouche would have loved to get a few hundred million bucks to run a campaign in his heyday, and I doubt Nader would refuse to cash the check too. It won't really take power away from the existing corrupt structure, they will still find a way to win regardless. The illusion of choice and propriety will simply keep the people down, still.

I don't identify with either party anymore, and the near-absolute control by special interests on both sides is only reaffirmed by the Court. It also is a setback to those like me who are looking for a strong, viable, qualified 3rd party. Just MHO.

[morriswalters 16]

As a statement of principle, I will accept no one as an  equal in the political  process unless  they are subject to the same  limitations as a human.  The must die after living their allotted span.  I accept the inequality of life because I know that we will all be wormfood in the end, thus equal at last.  They must be totally responsible for their acts.  Why should the owners of a corporation be shielded by a concept called limited  liability and then wish to have the same rights as someone who has no such shield.  My last principle is the  simplest,      Money talks and BS  walks.  The answer to your question Duke87, is that the man with the money controls the volume.

Manticore the power to tax is the source of power in the government.  If you wish to free your self from the tyranny of government, then remove that power.

To anybody who reads this, a note to  you on using precise definitions. In any important conversation what you say and what it means is very important.  It is very easy to draw two meanings from the same conversation even if people think they share a common understanding of what is said.  You can choose to ridicule this, but if it wasn't true, there would be no need need for Lawyers or Courts, who in Civil Law spend much of their time interpreting language. 

Oh, and Duke, misspelling ghostly takes away from the punch of your humor.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

As a statement of principle, I will accept no one as an  equal in the political  process unless  they are subject to the same  limitations as a human.  The must die after living their allotted span. quote>

I wouldn't say that humans have an "alloted life span". There comes a point beyond which surviving starts to become improbable, yes, but actual lenght of life varies. Some people live to be over 100, others die when they're very young.

Companies are sort of the same way, actually. Some die very young (many, in fact). Others have a good run but are gone in a few decades. It's the ones that get really big that tend to survive longer. Even still, they can and do die. Woolworth's went belly up after nearly a century in business.

the power to tax is the source of power in the government.  If you wish to free your self from the tyranny of government, then remove that power.quote>

This I can't argue with.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: morriswalters

As a statement of principle, I will accept no one as an  equal in the political  process unless  they are subject to the same  limitations as a human.  The must die after living their allotted span. quote>

I wouldn't say that humans have an "alloted life span". There comes a point beyond which surviving starts to become improbable, yes, but actual lenght of life varies. Some people live to be over 100, others die when they're very young.

Companies are sort of the same way, actually. Some die very young (many, in fact). Others have a good run but are gone in a few decades. It's the ones that get really big that tend to survive longer. Even still, they can and do die. Woolworth's went belly up after nearly a century in business.

the power to tax is the source of power in the government.  If you wish to free your self from the tyranny of government, then remove that power.quote>

This I can't argue with.

quote>

The response to the quoted line indicates to me three possibilities,  Your a Turing Machine, You are ignorant of the finer uses of your native language, or , and this is my personal favorite, your yanking my chain.  Perhaps I don't understand the rules of the road, so I'll slow down and be quiet for a while and attempt to absorb the flavor of the  discourse here, before I post again.