So fears over Citizens United was GREATLY overblown, yes?

[Mr Khan]

badgenome said:

Mr Khan said:

See, i've always interpreted those freedoms as being political freedoms more than full-fledged freedoms. Freedom of the press merely means that the state can't single out one viewpoint and pass laws like "you can't run stories that portray trickle-down economics in a negative light" or something like that, laws that would impact a political viewpoint, but if the law was politically content-neutral, it would be allowed to go forward (such as the old Fairness Doctrine. So long as it regulates everything equally, it's fair).

That is not what "Congress shall make no law" means.

As is the case with many tenets of the constitution, we've long since passed into an era where the conception of the press is different than in the founding father's day. The spirit of the amendment is to prevent the government from legislating against ideas, and the means for people to share their ideas. Freedom of Assembly is just that, freedom to assemble, to get together and discuss things, and isn't the right to incorporate to the end of filling the airwaves with privately-funded propaganda.

The founding fathers could not conceive of big moneyed interests becoming the primary global threat to liberty, that beginning about 70 years after their time.