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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (227316)	2/14/2002 8:00:11 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Dang right it's unconstitutional. If you think you can bash the Supreme Court for defending the Constitution, go for it. Stolen Liberty Rush Limbaugh On Wednesday night, the House of Representatives amended the Constitution of the United States, and stole a huge piece of our liberty. The Founders never meant for the Constitution to be amended by a simple majority, yet that's what happened. Imagine if this had happened during the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment! What a hue and cry there would have been. This bill was passed while much of America was sleeping and under the cover of darkness. This is when cowards come out of their caves and do their handiwork, when nobody is around to see them shred the First Amendment. If this was being reported as it should be - and if the media didn't stand to gain so much power from this bill - people would be outraged. The House decided, among other things, that you and I (and any groups that we belong to or contribute to) should no longer have the right to criticize or question congressional candidates in paid ads 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. Of course, most people don't start paying attention to elections until two weeks prior. It's just people like us, the junkies, who pay attention to it all the time. So exactly when most people are paying attention is when you can't exercise your free speech rights. I get so fed up with people talking about the "big money" in politics. Why do the NRA, or NAACP, Sierra Club have no right to join together and speak? We spend more money on advertising diapers in this country than we do on campaigns! For years I've been saying that this bill, given the deceptively feel-good name "campaign finance reform," was nothing less than an assault on your First Amendment rights. Some of you said I was crazy, but you were wrong - and proponents of this bill proved it. Yes, the House rejected a Dick Armey amendment to this bill that stated simply that nothing in the bill could violate the First Amendment. They rejected that, which means they know that they're in violation of the First Amendment. Again: in the last 60 days before a general election, and the last 30 days before a primary, you cannot run an ad about an opponent or a challenger. The political class now has succeeded in placing themselves in charge of the electoral process, guaranteeing, for the most part, their own reelection. My friends, that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they dreamed up this Constitution and this country. That is not American in any way. Money is like water. It'll find its way wherever it wants to go, no matter what obstacles you try to put in its way.The money in politics, supposedly such a huge scourge, is not going to be reduced at all by this bill - and I will apologize if I'm wrong about this. I will apologize if there's one less dollar in politics after this reform than there was before it. Instead, all that will happen is that the same editorialists who misinformed you in 2000 about George W. Bush being a frat boy, a dim light bulb, a man who couldn't lead anyone anywhere, will now be able to mislead you with a freer hand. I will be more powerful than ever under this bill, but I don't crave power. I crave freedom for all. Yet under CFR, there will be fewer checks and balances on this media because you won't be able to buy any commercial time to answer the charges that they make. The Supreme Court made clear in Buckley v. Valeo that claims about there being too much money in politics are not grounds for limiting free speech. It has to be a showing of corruption or the intention of addressing corruption. Now, if and when the Supreme Court strikes down this campaign finance reform bill, will it be said that it was indeed a violation of the First Amendment? No. Liberals are then going to bring back the Supreme Court stole the election argument from 2000. Remember this: the most frequently argued justification for campaign finance reform - that you think there's too much money being raised and spent on political campaigns - has been specifically rejected by the Supreme Court. This bill has nothing to do with banning supposedly evil money, as evidenced by the fact that the House also rejected Dick Armey's proposal to immediately ban all soft money. Armey's point was, "Hey, look, if we're going to ban soft money, let's do it right now. Let's not wait a year to do it so that we incumbents can benefit now." The House said no, citing laws that one Congress can't unilaterally make a law affecting any other. That's B.S. Of course they can. They just want to spend the money they have. Folks, the Constitution does not limit our freedom, it limits government's power. It clearly says "Congress shall make no laws" regulating freedom of speech. Yet that's what happened Wednesday night, under the guise of taking the "money" out of politics because that's what the people want. It's dreadful, folks. Just dreadful. rushlimbaugh.com

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (227316)	2/14/2002 8:17:51 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

Another load of crap. Did you have an enema today?? JLA

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (227316)	2/14/2002 9:36:44 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

what are you worried about? According to several of the talking heads, the reform will help Republicans more than Democrats anyway. I know you wish to stifle free speech......all but YOUR whining of course, but it ain't gonna happen, my friend.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (227316)	2/14/2002 10:26:06 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 769670

Flap...are you saying the (your description) "left wing" Supremes wouldn't see it the same way...?? What is happening is that everyone knows, or should know, that some of the provisions are simply add-ons, and known to be not legal. The Dems want to do this so they can say (I can hear them now...can't you Mr. Carville???) "This was stopped because the Republicans and Bush didn't want it through......" Balderdash!