Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 03, 2019

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., has determined there is too much political speech in the United States coming from sources he cannot abide. So, he stood in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., to announce he is backing Democratic New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposal to amend the First Amendment. The First Amendment -- as it now stands -- includes 10 unambiguous words about freedom of speech. "Congress," it says, "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It's a good argument, and I like it. But it falls flat on it's face if you understand that money isn't speech. Campaign finance reform doesn't require us amending the Bill of Rights - all it takes is a simple law.

We should go back to straight public funding. I remember the reason they overturned this - some crackpot was getting public funding to run for office. Well guess what, that is the price of freedom.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

LOL, Brent Bozell's rag??? Really? This is a legit news source now RussiaRat?
Should have just cut to the quick and used RT, or Sputnik news.

#1 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-03 02:19 AM | Reply

I used to say "Try to take away my civil rights. Watch what happens."

I learned a lot from MLK, and Malcolm X when he came back from Mecca before he got waxed by his own side over money.

I can't believe it's happening again.

And no I'm not disgruntled - I was never gruntled in the first place.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-03 03:54 AM | Reply

If I ever went to go to a political protest, the sign I would be carrying would just say "Grrr...".

(Call me if you need to know how to walk though AI facial image recognition. I'm a specialist).

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-03 04:17 AM | Reply

This is --------, rat-boy.

#4 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-08-03 09:09 AM | Reply

"I used to say "Try to take away my civil rights. Watch what happens.""

If you're not a corporation this would not affect you at all except to give you back democracy instead of oligarchy.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-03 10:12 AM | Reply

Every member of the SC who voted for CU should be impeached.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-03 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Money's not speech. It's the volume knob that drowns out other's speech.

#7 | Posted by morris at 2019-08-03 06:16 PM | Reply

So let's just burn books now Fahrenheit 451-style!

This is what Danni supports and what Danforth has been trying to shame me into voting for.

Um, no.

This is the type of initiative that makes me despise the Democratic Party.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-03 06:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

--Money's not speech.

Posted on a blog hosted on commercial servers.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-03 06:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Money's not speech.

Technically correct but that is not a reason to restrict spending on political speech.

Four minute video by First Amendment law professor, Eugene Volokh, at UCLA. Is Money Speech? Free Speech Rules

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-03 10:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This is the type of initiative that makes me despise the Democratic Party.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ

Removing the ability to double dip via the absurd notion that a corporation has equal rights to a person that can be used by the owner makes you despise the Democrats?

While you're a lukewarm Trump supporter...

Yeah I'm sure they don't care with an absurd opinion such as that.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 11:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#11

Why does the business model of the speaker matter? Is there something different or objectionable about the content of "Hillary: The Movie" because it was produced by "Citizens United, Inc." rather than "John Doe, a proprietorship, doing business as Citizens United" or just "John Doe, an individual?"

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-03 11:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It has nothing to do with the business model.

Is there something different or objectionable about the content of "Hillary: The Movie" because it was produced by "Citizens United, Inc." rather than "John Doe, a proprietorship, doing business as Citizens United" or just "John Doe, an individual?"

Because the movie is the product of a human mind, specifically the director Alan Peterson.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-03 11:58 PM | Reply

It has nothing to do with the business model.

Then what does the objection to a production by "CU, Inc." have to do with?

Because the movie is the product of a human mind ...

A whole host of human minds all of whom are, presumably, employed by CU who owns the final product.

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-04 12:50 AM | Reply

Then what does the objection to a production by "CU, Inc." have to do with?

The ridiculous notion that "corporate speech" is anything more than a second voice for a select few, even within the organization.

A whole host of human minds all of whom are, presumably, employed by CU who owns the final product.

Yawn.

Then why isn't there an Oscar for Best Production Company?

How many working for the company get accounted for when considering the corporate "person's" political views?

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-04 01:20 AM | Reply

JPW,

This is censorship that you are advocating.

Newsflash: Publishing a book or producing a movie requires $$$$!

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-04 02:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

HeRat makes a very important point. Public funding of our political system and process in order to re-establish any semblance of a government of, by and for the people. We will never live in such circumstances when Washington DC is owned by so few.

#17 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-08-04 09:42 AM | Reply

I'm too tired of this kind of --- to re-post my ideas on campaign finance reform, but it's safe to say that my idea beats the crap out of amending the 1st.

#18 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-04 10:00 AM | Reply

This is censorship that you are advocating.

Nonsense.

I'm advocating for corps to be the special legal entity they are and for rights like freedom of speech to belong to people as intended.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-04 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let';s legalize bribery in politics. Who voted for that? Oh, yeah.

#20 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-04 05:00 PM | Reply

If corporations are people, when they break the law they need to go to prison.

Since we can't do that their CEO's and executives can take the corporations place in prison.

#21 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-05 05:29 AM | Reply

"This is the type of initiative that makes me despise the Democratic Party."

Jeff, do you honestly believe the authors of the 1st Amendment intended for it to be a license for corporations to buy candidates? You know very well they would never have supported this system of legal bribery. Why do you continue to support a practice that is ruining our country? Are you bought and paid for yourself? I honestly wonder sometimes about what your motivations are.

"but it's safe to say that my idea beats the crap out of amending the 1st."

Those suggesting amending it aren't the one's who purposefully misinterpreted it by including corporations under the term persons. A little clarity about what constitutes a person is very necessary in today's absolutely corrupt politics.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 10:57 AM | Reply

"Publishing a book or producing a movie requires $$$$!"

During the Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders said that lobbyists for the private health insurance industry was running ads agains Medicare for all during the debate...and he was correct. That is simply corporate money being used to protect corporate profits, they literally use our premiums to prevent us from doing what is in our own best interests....so they can profit hugely and make healthcare coverage unattainable for millions.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 11:08 AM | Reply

#22 It can be done without amending the most important Amendment in the Constitution. Just create a law I call the From Me To Thee law. All campaign contributions must come directly from a voter to a candidate, with reasonable limits on per person and per candidate donations. No bundlers, no corporations, no expensive dinners, no unions, no PACs, no non-profits, no institutions, no committees, no organizations. Any advertising for or against a specific candidate counts as a donation. No candidate can self-fund.

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-05 11:42 AM | Reply

To me, it really boils down to 'Can a corporation engage in speech?' If a corporation can purchase an ad for their product, they are engaged in speech. The 1st amendment does not say that people have the right to speech. It specifically places limits on the government. It doesn't say 'only these entities have speech' it says 'Government cannot abridge speech'.

If your plan is to engage in the mistaken belief that corporations can have speech sometimes and not others, you are not being intellectually honest. If you want to say that corporations cannot engage in speech, then the ad companies and most newspapers/TV stations/Radio stations/web pages disappear. That is a discussion that I will enter into to, but I think that you need to look long and hard at the resulting unintended consequences of that thinking.

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 01:01 PM | Reply

That is simply corporate money being used to protect corporate profits, they literally use our premiums to prevent us from doing what is in our own best interests....so they can profit hugely and make healthcare coverage unattainable for millions.
#23 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 11:08 AM

Danni, you act like this is unusual. Do you think that the #2 brand fabric softener advertises themselves as #2? Do you think that they advertise for the #1 brand because the #1 brand is superior? Or do you accept that brands are going to use their money to engage in activity that will generally promote growth of their brand?

#26 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 01:04 PM | Reply

"If your plan is to engage in the mistaken belief that corporations can have speech sometimes and not others"

That's actually the way it already is.

Corporations can have speech when they spend money for TV ads.

Corporations can't have speech when they don't spent money for TV ads.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 01:05 PM | Reply

Any advertising for or against a specific candidate counts as a donation. No candidate can self-fund. - #24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-05 11:42 AM
You have just abridged the people's freedom of speech.
Joe Blow wants to spend $1million buying ads for candidate X, and you have made that illegal.
Jane Doe, who owns a newspaper, places ads in her paper free of charge and that is legal?
You've also abridged the candidates freedom of speech.

#28 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 01:08 PM | Reply

"You've also abridged the candidates freedom of speech."

Not candidates.

Corporations.

Most ads aren't even run by candidates.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 01:11 PM | Reply

"You have just abridged the people's freedom of speech.
Joe Blow wants to spend $1million buying ads for candidate X"

That's not speech, that's commerce.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 01:13 PM | Reply

"Danni, you act like this is unusual. Do you think that the #2 brand fabric softener advertises themselves as #2? Do you think that they advertise for the #1 brand because the #1 brand is superior? Or do you accept that brands are going to use their money to engage in activity that will generally promote growth of their brand?"

I don't care about that at all but I do care that they use their corporate profits to influence our elections.
I just have zero respect for the argument that their use of money turns them into people. The founders are rolling in their graves over this issue and everyone involved knows it. They got a crooked SC to give them what they want and the actual people of the nation should impeach every one of them who pretend corporations are people.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 01:33 PM | Reply

"Do you think that the #2 brand fabric softener advertises themselves as #2? Do you think that they advertise for the #1 brand because the #1 brand is superior?"

Do you think we should make political decisions the same way we make shopping choices?

Where are the coupons?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 01:36 PM | Reply

It's not their use of money that turns them into people. Corporations are made up of groups of people. Those groups do not lose their rights by joining with other people.
The government, limited by the constitution, does not have the power to limit one of those rights - Freedom of Speech.
Maybe review the ruling a bit.
www.huffpost.com

#33 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 02:03 PM | Reply

"Those groups do not lose their rights by joining with other people."

Each of those people if they are citizens has the right to vote, freedom of speech, etc. Be honest for a moment, if you can. Do you believe the founding fathers ever intended for corporations to be considered people with the same rights as a citizen?

#34 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 02:39 PM | Reply

"It's not their use of money that turns them into people."

It is their use of money which turns
advertising into commerce, not speech.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 03:14 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort