Summations Only

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.

(1) personal spending on campaigns up to current limits(2) corporate spending on campaigns up to current limitsDouble the money, double the "voice" on the airwavesand those limits are the next item being attacked in the courtEnjoy

Of course I know how unlikely it would be but I also know that when the court says they might consider something cases can be found or manufactured and the process fast tracked.However I think that there have been enough examples of government meddling with free speech since the Reagan coup to justify such acts.But I have long said I believe the US has already passed the point of peaceful return.

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.

Wow, that's gotta be the most illogical thing I've seen you post. Not only is that a huge stretch to make it a "voice", but the math doesn't even add up (a corporation doesn't represent just one person).

Let me just be a complete dumbass here for a bit:Why should I care how much money corporations waste on political spending?ABE:Actually, this should be a new thread.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I think there might be another even more possible amendment that simply makes the sole source of funding public funds.Any candidate for any federal office that can gather a set number of signatures will be eligible for a set amount of public funds and all political advertising air time will be at no charge.

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.

I did not say solicit; but the judges are still public figures and speak even if off record or on a golf course. In the late seventies the Religious Right in the US set forth a plan to increase there voice and influence in the US under the guise of "The Moral Majority" (an oxymoron at best). They had three main targets, school boards, governorships and one of the major political parties. The Republican party looked far easier to take over and in fact they succeeded.The first step was in California where they managed to elect an actor governor who proceeded to demolish the best education system in the nation and push through a few key initiatives that made it nearly impossible to fund the state.The next step was to use Reagan as a way to capture the Republican party. Now in the past the Republican party had been split between a moderately liberal wing lead by Nelson Rockefeller and a moderately conservative wing lead by Barry Goldwater. The Reagan faction did a great job of portraying both as liberal and near commies. They were so far to the right that they really did make Goldwater look like a flaming liberal, but the actor was a great communicator and the Moral Majority great manipulators.The there was the Iran Hostage incident and each even the news started with "Day x of the Crisis"In reality there was no crisis, the so called hostages were not in real danger and even had they been it was not a major threat to the US. Iran was smart enough to understand the limits involved in the concept of diplomacy and that actually harming the diplomats would be see by all nations as a major threat including all of their allies.But it was useful and Reagan wanted it continued as long as possible. (search Iran Contra).Reagan won in a landslide and began the process of dismantling government, removing Constitutional Rights and turning the US into an oligarchy.Since then the Republican faction has succeeded in:removing the Fairness Doctrine
removing the limits on media outlet ownership
removing the Chinese Wall between news and advertising
erasing the distinction reporting and editorial comment
defunding Public Broadcastingand a whole host and laundry list of other steps that limited free speech and created a population that can actually consider programs like 60 Minutes as "News".

Sweet, thanks for the link. I've got some work to do, but I'll get caught up with that reading and I'll get back to you with an opinion and maybe an argument.

Seems to be some problem with your timing?Reagan was governor of California from 1967-1975.

Yup, old age I guess and I was even living out there at the time.Thanks.Make it 60s.

CS interjects: Maybe not just one, but certainly not all who work at the corporation.Take Walmart. What percent of the people working for that corporation have a voice in who the Walton family will endorse, bankroll & promote for election?Do the greeters have any say in that?Here's involuntarily retired ex-computer engineer now-greeter Uncle Bob, working his maximum part time minimum wage hours and he can put up his maximum allowed $2,700.00* that he saved under his mattress for candidate Elizabeth Warren.Here's CEO Walton who can put up his maximum $2,700.00* allowed out of his American Express card for candidate Paul Ryan, plus direct $6 million out of his Cayman Island account into the PAC for Electing Paul Ryan. Uncle Bob cannot stop this.*corrected for inflation from today's $2,600.00Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

Of course not, why would it? Exactly the percentage of them that should: 0%.Its the Walton's money, why should one of their employees have any say in how they spend their own money? So what?