Re: Re: Was ZICAM - Now: Very Off Topic- 1st Admendment

[Guest guest]

Are you aware, that corporations were banned prior to this ruling to contributing UNLESS you were a media corporation - YES, an exception for the media.  Give me a break. Protect free speech no matter what - it benefits everyone. Don't worry about the symptoms, protect our rights, and get rid of the disease.

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:34 AM, healinghope <mfrreman@...> wrote:

 

The justices weighed two fundamental political forces - the power of the central government and the concentration of corporate wealth - and tilted decidedly in favor of the latter. The opinion by Justice Kennedy made a vigorous argument based on the Constitution for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech, even in the interest of fighting corruption.

" The Court today made a bad situation worse, " Common Cause President Bob Edgar said. " This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy. "

> > > Corporations DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. In fact, one of the biggest reasons

> > > that (some) corporations have been able to grow into the monsters they

> > > are today is through the perversion of concept of what constitutes a

> > > 'person' under the law as far as the protection of Rights goes.

> > >

> > > Corporations are creatures of the State. They are not people, and they

> > > don't (shouldn't) have Rights, they (should) only have privileges under

> > > the law, revocable at any time should they start to get out of hand.

> > >

> >

> > ********

> > America is great because of capitalism…the right to private ownership, to produce a product and make a profit. Corporations provide millions of jobs for Americans, make available automobiles, gasoline for travel and heating oil to one warm, produce clothing, raw materials for homes and food. Businesses are used by our legislators as government's personal piggy bank. Business is over regulated by legislators, so much so that great numbers are leaving this country to save their companies, thereby leaving many here jobless. Uncle Sam's income via taxes from so called " big oil " is far greater than the profit margin they are left with. Of course, business has the right to participate in political speech.

> >

> > According to the 1st Amendment, political speech must be protected. Congress and the courts have quietly over the years stolen this right, mainly for the purpose of keeping themselves in office. Thank GOD government's power has just been knocked back and the 1st Amendment upheld by the Supreme Court. Any attempt by government to silence the speech of any group should be rebuked.

> >

> > Below is a thoughtful article by Will:

> >

> > The Supreme Court's radical defense of political speech

> >

> > For almost four decades now, what has been done in the name of " campaign finance reform " has constituted the most dangerous assault on freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is because the government, by regulating what can be spent in order to disseminate political speech and when political speech may occur, has asserted the astonishing right to dictate the quantity, content and timing of speech about the government.

> > On Thursday, however, the Supreme Court, in a gratifyingly radical decision, substantially pushed back the encroachments that the political class has made on the sphere of free political speech. This was radical only because after nearly four decades of such " reform " the First Amendment has come to seem radical. Which, indeed, it is. The Supreme Court on Thursday restored First Amendment protection to the core speech that it was designed to protect -- political speech. There will be no more McCain-Feingold blackout periods before primary and general elections -- periods during which political advocacy was restricted, just as public attention was most intense.

> > The court's decision will be predictably lamented by people alarmed by the prospect of more political money funding more political speech. The Supreme Court has now said to such people approximately this: The First Amendment does not permit government to decide the " proper " quantity of political speech.

> >

> > Diane

> >

>