By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
 

How's that? People currently don't forfeit their right to speak freely just because they come together in a group, but that's exactly what you're suggesting they do. That's eviscerating the First Amendment, however you justify it.

As for public funding, I'd rather not be forced to pay for the political campaigns of people I don't support while being prevented from supporting the candidates I do like, thanks.

Then what do you suggest? Until Citizens United is overturned, things are only going to get worse, not better. We can talk all we want about "getting government out of big business" but how the hell is that going to happen if big business is the group telling government to help them, and that they have to listen because big business has the money to get them elected that no-one else has?

The only way to get even a libertarian solution to work is to at least temporarily cripple the ability of businesses to participate.

Wow. You weren't kidding before when you said you were influenced by fascism, were you?

How exactly would you even go about overturning Citizens United, short of amending the Constitution? Furthermore, why would you even want to? Precious little has changed, other than the government being blued in to the fact that it has no right to suspend the First Amendment to ban books or movies because it's too close to an election for its liking.

The point is that there are quicker steps to take rather than radically reforming so many sectors of American governance, just radically reform one.

There would, i imagine, be other ways to end-run around citizens united without having to mess with the first amendment (namely making requirements across the board, universal caps on donations at a fairly low level).

Then there's the whole underlying question of whether speech is equal to money



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.