Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CVJ who wrote (6280)	3/14/2001 7:50:40 AM
From: Thehammer	Respond to of 59480

Chas, I will give some thought to your suggestion and respond this evening. I agree with you in principal. However, money as many of the politicians, would have you believe is not the only issue. I still have a problem with the "free advertising", presented as news by the liberal press. Also, I do not know the legal answer to this but will not assume," Can we agree that Freedom of Speech applies only to individual persons and not to institutions?" You may well be correct with this. Perhaps some legal scholars can shed some light. Later..

To: CVJ who wrote (6280)	3/14/2001 12:50:24 PM
From: CVJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I intended this post to solicit answers from any and all. Incompetent editing eliminated my "To Any and All" opening. I did not intend to "challenge" Hammer only, rather I was attempting to solicit enough opinions to see if any kind of consensus might develop. Everyone is more than welcome to take the "test". I am aware that this may be Quixotic in nature by virtue of being a money in politics issue. But tilting at windmills is the story of my life, and is what keeps me out of the big time. Chas

To: CVJ who wrote (6280)	3/14/2001 10:28:35 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 59480

cjac, read Will's piece on Madison and factions: msnbc.com Then read the First Amendment carefully and tell me seriously you can believe the First Amendment applies only to individual persons and not to institutions. It is a preposterous and dangerous notion. Please reconsider. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To: CVJ who wrote (6280)	3/14/2001 10:43:21 PM
From: Thehammer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Hi Chas, I see that a number of folks responded to your challenge. After mulling your proposal, here's my response: The price of a constitutional guarantee of specific rights also entails acceptance of additional risks and responsibilities. There is no doubt political contributions, coverage by the press, and special interests play a part in election politics. The founders of this country entrusted its citizens with the responsibility to be an informed electorate. The underlying philosophy being citizens are empowered to investigate and make wise decisions. The founding fathers did not view the electorate as victims, but masters of their own destiny. The act of placing restrictions on political contributions under the guise of fairness or to remove undue influence, undermines the responsibility of citizenship and portrays the electorate as victim. Attempts to remove all elements of risk, invariably also remove our rights. It is the duty of each and every citizen to be informed on the issues and to "spend" their vote wisely.