The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The distinction, of course, is that point 2) would limit the ability of wealthy candidates to buy elections by spending millions or billions of their own money.

Again, an ignorant argument is concluded by a personal slap at another poster. This sort of thing is why you are considered an obnoxious idiot, 4-2-7.

And what of number 1?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

I do wonder at times, considering the extent of disrespect that is heaped upon him time and time again; well deserved I might add.

Do you have anything to contribute to the topic? Or just trolling for reactions?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

And what of number 1?

See post # 56.

Personally, I find the proposed amendmernt too complex for it's purpose. I would substitute the following:

"No person or organization may expend money for the purpose of purchasing video media time to advocate for the candidacy, or nomination for candidacy, of any individual, or group of individuals."

This would eliminate TV ads, which are by far the most ignorant, manipulative, vile propaganda in current use--and of course the object of the vast majority of election spending. Without this tool, the ability of wealth to influence elections, and thus hold influence over lawmakers, would be vastly mitigated.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

See post # 56.

Personally, I find the proposed amendmernt too complex for it's purpose. I would substitute the following:

"No person or organization may expend money for the purpose of purchasing video media time to advocate for the candidacy, or nomination for candidacy, of any individual, or group of individuals."

This would eliminate TV ads, which are by far the most ignorant, manipulative, vile propaganda in current use--and of course the object of the vast majority of election spending. Without this tool, the ability of wealth to influence elections, and thus hold influence over lawmakers, would be vastly mitigated.

Nothing is more ignorant or short sided than someone supporting the elimination of free speech.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

See post # 56.

Personally, I find the proposed amendmernt too complex for it's purpose. I would substitute the following:

"No person or organization may expend money for the purpose of purchasing video media time to advocate for the candidacy, or nomination for candidacy, of any individual, or group of individuals."

This would eliminate TV ads, which are by far the most ignorant, manipulative, vile propaganda in current use--and of course the object of the vast majority of election spending. Without this tool, the ability of wealth to influence elections, and thus hold influence over lawmakers, would be vastly mitigated.

It would do nothing of the sort. It would do nothing to curb the so - called position ads or advocacy ads. Those are the types of ads that the 501(c)(3)'s pump out like crazy during campaign season, and are the ones that most folks can't stand. They are, however, political speech, and as such should not be curtailed IMHO.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by whell

It would do nothing of the sort. It would do nothing to curb the so - called position ads or advocacy ads. Those are the types of ads that the 501(c)(3)'s pump out like crazy during campaign season, and are the ones that most folks can't stand. They are, however, political speech, and as such should not be curtailed IMHO.

Exactly.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

It would do nothing of the sort. It would do nothing to curb the so - called position ads or advocacy ads. Those are the types of ads that the 501(c)(3)'s pump out like crazy during campaign season, and are the ones that most folks can't stand. They are, however, political speech, and as such should not be curtailed IMHO.

Good lord, somebody must've slipped a mickey finn in my coffee as I find myself agreeing with Whell for once.
At least with 501c3's we can see the donor lists. How do you feel about those 501c4's Mike? Should they be able to engage in politicking with up to 49% of their budgets instead of following the law as written?

[donquixote99]

No political ads on TV. Period. Write amendment to suit, including all the 501 blah blah stuff.

Just look at them. No one can say their elimination would do anything but advance the influence of truth and reason in public affairs.

Let the advocates go crazy in print and radio. See how much they can spend that way. If you're dying to hear your candidate speak, show up at a speech.

What I really like is the elimination of the usefulness of hundreds of millions in campaign expenditures. If there's no use for the money, the money guys can't buy as much influence.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

No political ads on TV. Period. Write amendment to suit, including all the 501 blah blah stuff.

Just look at them. No one can say their elimination would do anything but advance the influence of truth and reason in public affairs.

Let the advocates go crazy in print and radio. See how much they can spend that way. If you're dying to hear your candidate speak, show up at a speech.

What I really like is the elimination of the usefulness of hundreds of millions in campaign expenditures. If there's no use for the money, the money guys can't buy as much influence.

Worthless dribble! Dude, give it up.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Worthless dribble! Dude, give it up.

It's spelled drivel Deej. Get a dictionary/spellcheck dude.