exactly
and then the supreme court decided that caps on campaign contributions ARE uncons utional
Right, so an "originalist" justice who's bent on interpreting the cons ution literally shouldn't arrive at the decision that caps on campaign contributions are uncons utional.
Because it's an affront to Free Speech.
and then the supreme court decided that caps on campaign contributions ARE uncons utional
Last edited by Spurtacular; 10-02-2020 at 12:54 AM.
broken clock tbh
choose one meme
Free Speech is the First Amendment, Lite.
but nothing in the cons ution said that caps on campaign contributions are uncons utional
activist judge
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 pe ion the government for a redress of grievances.
corporate money = speech
If we're talking corporate donations, that's gray area. But for individuals, people should not be told by govt. how to spend their money.corporate money = speech
citizens united was specifically about corporations, not people
So me fraudulently transferring money in order to make it so a creditor can't go after it is me expressing free speech?
I wouldn't say it's not about people. This all involves people.
What do you mean to you wouldn't say it's not about people? The Citizens United ruling was specifically addressing a law that dealt with corporate donations.
You have a right to speech, not to commit monetary fraud.
the legal issue decided in the citizen's united case was about campaign expenditures by corporations
at no point in that case did they make a ruling about individual campaign expenditures
What the is monetary fraud? I'm talking about fraudulent transfer.
If spending money however I want to = free speech, then fraudulent transfer is 1st amendment protected activity.
the legal issue decided in the citizen's united case was about campaign expenditures by corporations
at no point in that case did they make a ruling about individual campaign expendituresOkay.In the case, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA" (pronounced "bik-ruh").[4] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures for "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]
So, what exactly is your problem with that, Lite?
Sure, your own money. You don't have a right to commit theft or whatever the you're talking about.
Multi derp posting incoming.
BTW, Hillary cried so much about the Citizens United case that I'm thinking it has to be about the best decision in SCOTUS history.
That was seriously like her number one beef. And then you read about how people we're blocked from airing her within X days of voting and you're like, yea that's some evil . No wonder that psycopath was so ing butthurt.
you cant stay on a single point.
a couple of posts ago, you said you dont want the government telling people what to do with their money, but you acknowledged that corporate money is different, and at least a gray area.
i'm telling you that citizens united dealt exclusively with how corporations can spend on campaign expenditures and now you're saying you have no problem with that. what happened to the gray area?
or are you just starting from the default position that citizens united was good, and as you learn about it, you end up having to convince yourself that it is good?
I'm talking about fraudulent transfer, not theft or conversion. Every state has a uniform fraudulent transfer statute that restricts how people who owe creditors money are allowed to spend/transfer assets. I guess those are all uncons utional.
Just want to understand what exactly you're even crying about. Far as I can tell it's just a matter of #AlwaysWithHer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote