Quote:
Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
Hahahah so youd like big corps to grant senators and govoners money? So they can put up ads in thier office? Heck your limiting thier free speech! You can't look at free speech the way your arguing becasue it just doesnt work that way in the real world.
I can't waste any more time on you. No matter what I say your gonna see what you want. Choose to see though cheney's corporate ties then choose to ignore the ACLU and NRA's cooperate ties and support thier PROPAGAHNDA about constitutional violations. Then citing this reform as a red haring to cover up some conspiracy to try ot proove me wrong.
I'm done, but you shouldn't be. I know you don't want to admit it on this forum but at least look into it more until you realize whats REALLY going on in this country. Right now your basically defending cooperations having full run of the elections and let me tell you right now they are trying as hard as they can to do just that.
"Anything but bush!!! (Including unlimited cooperate campaign spending)"
Is kinda how your coming across to me. The way the law reads now individuals are EXEMPT from these rules you call unconstitutional as well as groups that don't take cooperate money. The constitution was written for individuals not groups or copperations.
|
You're basing your entire argument on the idea that these groups don't serve the people at all and instead serve corporate interests. That's silly, corporate interests have lobbyists. Groups like the NRA and ACLU represent the interests of the citizens. These groups are now shut down during election periods. These groups are a major voice of the people and get a lot more exposure then any one individual could possibly get. This stops individuals from getting together and effectively speaking out about politicians and legislation.
The constitution was written for citizens and these groups are collections of citizens. If you still don't agree, that this law is unconstitutional, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, some of the judges on the supreme court agreed that this is unconstitutional since it was not a unanimous decision. That means that there are some who do believe this to be unconstitutional.
We're not going to resolve this here, because this is a matter of opinion and it is likely that we are taking vastly different approaches. I am taking the approach of individual freedom and assemblies of citizens having the same rights as individual citizens. You appear to be taking the approach that groups of citizens have different rights then individual citizens.
Just agree to disagree, and have little bit of respect and dignity for your opponent.
Conclusion: It is my opinion that the supreme court has upheld uncontitutional laws and it is yours that they have not. Discussion over, have a nice day.