quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

This media audit, coupled with the recent proposal of 49 Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech, paints a disturbing picture of a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

And the talking points language is crafted.

The IRS is forever tainted with the smell of political hackery

From the Associated Press:

IRS says it has lost emails from 5 more employees

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You just wrote it. The amendment says it already.

Where does it say it? I'm reading from the link you provided and it says:

"Congress shall
5 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money
6 and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,
7 including through setting limits on—
8 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates
9 for nomination for election to, or for election to,
10 Federal office; and
11 ‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,
12 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates."

Nowhere in there does it say that congress can't give ten million to incumbent Ricky Republican and only ten thousand to challenger Danny Democrat in one election and then turn around and give ten thousand to incumbent Donna Democrat and ten million to challenger Roger Republican in another election. Sure, the amendment makes a big deal about how all this is to "advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes . . . " but it doesn't actually mandate it. By not mandating it, it allow the very opposite to become enshrined in the Constitution.

This amendment, as is, is a sure fire road to one party rule. I don't care which party that would be because when it comes to power corrupting, I don't trust the Democrats any more than I trust the Republicans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You are claiming she's a Republican...

These "talking points" as you call them, write themselves. Or rather, its the Democrats writing them for the Republicans...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

This is the path to tyranny. ANY American of ANY stripe who would be suckered into supporting this assault on freedom should have their right to vote stripped at best, and the ones who love the idea should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot as a better option. I'll volunteer for duty on the latter, if needed.

Clear enough?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

This is the path to tyranny. ANY American of ANY stripe who would be suckered into supporting this assault on freedom should have their right to vote stripped at best, and the ones who love the idea should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot as a better option. I'll volunteer for duty on the latter, if needed.

Clear enough?

quote:

No. The amendment language is the whole thing which does include:
"advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes"
The courts would take that into account when evaluating any campaign finance law. And any law like what you are talking about would outrage the people and that is political suicide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The fascist doesn't want to surrender power

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

No. The amendment language is the whole thing which does include:
"advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes"
The courts would take that into account when evaluating any campaign finance law. And any law like what you are talking about would outrage the people and that is political suicide.

You're presuming the courts can be trusted to be fair and objective. That aside, I don't understand why you think "the people" would be outraged at the idea of equality in finance and commercial time. Some people would be against it, sure - those who benefit from the status quo - but why would those who are already locked out of the system be against it? I seriously do not understand what you have against clarity in language.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The fascist doesn't want to surrender power

Nice to see you putting Harry Reid in his proper uniform, Ken.

Of course, of every participant in this forum, you are absolutely the one I would most expect to see parroting the talking points of the totalitarians. You may be a great disappointment to so many people in your life, but you've lived down to my expectations of you nicely.

quote:

I have nothing against clarity and the amendment is clear. You are opposing it on specious grounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You are claiming she's a Republican...

These "talking points" as you call them, write themselves. Or rather, its the Democrats writing them for the Republicans...

Yet again, you prove you're unable to read.

I reminded you she's a Bush appointee. That's is.

Another Bush screw up. And another Bush Lite continuance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I have nothing against clarity and the amendment is clear. You are opposing it on specious grounds.

There is nothing specious about handing congress the power to decide who gets to be heard in an election and who does not. You still have not answered my question. What would prevent congress (or any of the legislative bodies this amendment would empower) from using this amendment to fund the elections of one party and not the other? What language in the amendment specifically prevents this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I have nothing against clarity and the amendment is clear. You are opposing it on specious grounds.

There is nothing specious about handing congress the power to decide who gets to be heard in an election and who does not. You still have not answered my question. What would prevent congress (or any of the legislative bodies this amendment would empower) from using this amendment to fund the elections of one party and not the other? What language in the amendment specifically prevents this?

If you really think this (handing a significant amount of power to a small group of people) isn't really that important a consideration then I guess there is no convincing you at all and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I shall remain perplexed about it.

I remain a supporter of the idea behind the amendment but without some serious tweaking, this amendment does not accomplish that. I do not see how this amendment can improve the current situation but can easily see how it could make matters much worse.

Are you certain that you are not so enamored by the thought of the journey that you fail to see where the road leads?

quote:

The clear language of the amendment prevents this. You simply handwaved this away when it was pointed out to you three separate times.