Summations Only

Thus the Homeowner's Association can no longer sponsor a debate of School Board candidates then endorse a favored candidate.And again, by what constitutional provision may congress invalidate constitutional rights for any segment of society?Only an amendment will do. Without that there will be strong and justifiable challenges.SCOTUS may go along with such a scheme, in error as we have seen the court do many times. Then 30, 50, 100 years from now the court will see its error and overturn the precedent as we have also seen the court do many times.The only viable fix I can see is an amendment baring corporations of certain size (the mega-corps) from lobbying congress, contributing to political campaigns and sponsoring or funding political ads.Even here, you just know the money will find a legal way around the restrictions.

Oh I fully agree.The problem is that in a nation where creationist universities are numerous, the illogic of religion runs rampant and the most popular television fare are vampires, zombies and faked-up "reality" shows, getting a constitutional amendment passed and ratified within the week seems considerably easier.But you are right, again, so we do have to try.

But this world has an infallible Pope and that's not a dangerou ...OK, bad example.

The issue is not corporations. The issue is the right of the government to limit political speech. It don't exist.

Except the law says they do have a voice. We have to change the law. Unfortunately, the law in question is the constitution.So the discussion has come full circle, again.

So what?Groups of people get together and decide to do (name it). It doesn't matter if they are 2 or 5 or 1000, a club, an association, a partnership, an LP, LLP, LLLP or they incorporate for liability or tax purposes. Even if the court decided that corporations are not people these are still assembled forms of us - we the people.If "we" decide to write a political opinion piece or TV ad to distribute anywhere and everywhere, that is political "speech".

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

The government is not allowed to stop "us", individually or collectively ... yet.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : soften tone

So you think SCOTUS is empowered to limit political speech on its own volition?

Good luck with that.

You do know how the court works, yes? It will probably be another 20+ years before a similar case comes along.Even then don't hold your breath. The chances of a court, any court, taking a bite out of the First Amendment are close to nil ... not because the mega-corps don't have a great moneyed advantage in politics but because government cannot be trusted to assure, through censorship, the "fairness" of political speech.

On the subject of corporate political expression, just for jollies and tittles, let us propose a Constitutional Amendment.Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: Any additions, deletions, changes?It's a pipe dream, I know, but it is a lovely and fun pipe dream.

Correction: SCOTUS, by judicial temperament and ethics, cannot solicit cases. It can only select from those cases that have been brought to it on appeal from the circuit courts. Only the Solicitor General and a state (either its supreme court or attorney general) can request expedited appeal (bypassing the circuit courts) and that only happens if the court agrees and issues a writ of summons. Oh good. Another issue to digest. Explain, please. Start with the "coup" part. You might very well be right ... again. Damn it, jar, I really wish you would stop that.

See Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The reasoning is in there. If you don't agree or don't care then that's fine.As for a new thread? Like jar, you may be right (don't make a habit of it) but I don't think this is going to garner that much interest.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

OK, clean it up.1. California's budget problems are keyed to Prop 13 passed in 1978 well after Reagan's term. Howard Jarvis wrote the anti-tax proposition in response to the public outcry after a nearly quadrupling of property tax rates in the prior few years not due to any Moral Majority push which hadn't yet been formed. Californians have had ample opportunity to rid the state of Prop 13 and its supermajority requirement for passage of any new taxes but have refused. That is what is dismantling the state's tax and spend culture, not Reagan or any Moral Majority.2. Carter created the Iran situation when in the midsts of the Iranian rebellion he allowed the hated and deposed Shah Razi Pahlavi sanctuary in the US. Reagan had nothing to do with the crisis or in its continuation. But Ayatollah Khomeini did. The taking and holding of American diplomatic hostages united the revolution allowing Khomeini to consolidate his power. He had warned Carter well prior to the embassy seige that giving sanctuary to Pahlavi instead of returning him to Iran for trial would cause great enmity in Iran. When the Shah died Khomeini vowed to not release the hostages until Carter was removed from office.3. Iran-Contra was nearly a decade after the hostage release and had to do with the USA's surreptitious supply of arms, meant for the rebels in Nicaragua, given over to Iran in violation of an arms embargo in place. 4. removing the Fairness Doctrine - which was no longer necessary or effective since the airwave expansion and the new technologies that used them created a surge of media outlets expanding the political voice of the country. Since congress had never legislated the Fairness Doctrine to begin with (it was the sole invention of the FCC in 1949) it had no force of law. And on top of that the Fairness Doctrine did not end until 2011 under a Democrat administration.5. remove limits on media outlet ownership - The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a Democrat initiative under a Democrat administration.6. removing the Chinese Wall between news and advertising - which did not exist in law but was a self-imposed division by broadcasters which collapsed under the weight of increasing media outlet competition.7. erasing the distinction reporting and editorial comment - which also did not exist under law and never did exist in reality.8. defunding Public Broadcasting - which Nixon first attempted and failed. There is indeed an ideological move by Republicans to defund CPB. While cuts in funding have taken place, at the same level as most other federal programs, defunding of CPB has not happened.After all those "attaboys" for being right you have just hit a big "awshit". The slate is cleared. No more green stars.Edited by AZPaul3, : titleEdited by AZPaul3, : oops

That's OK. You are so entitled. I value your opinion as much as anyone else's, which, since they are not mine, is not all that much.Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin

Ah ... yup.