Now I understand. I'm not sure I agree though. The first amendment is not absolute in the freedom of speech & it is up to the courts' interpretation. I like their interpretation that restricts people financing particular candidates. Not from a constitutional standpoint, but from a corruptional stand point it seems that this is done is good spirit as an attempt to reduce political/corporate relations & political connection related corruption.
Finance reform has done nothing to stop the corruption. In fact, I don't see anything this reform has accomplished, except make people jump through hoops to get money to their candidate. You and I should be allowed to contribute as much as we like to any candidate. We should be allowed to take out full page ads in newspapers or run TV ads supporting our candidate or to bash the opposition. Restricting campaign contributions is like restricting guns ... it's not the contribution or gun that does the damage, it's people.
Whether it's effective or not is a different story, I just meant to say I think it's done in good spirit as an attempt to stop corruption.
If Tom Delay has broken the law then he should be subject to prosecution. Whether he is Republican, Democrat or Communist. Did Clinton get prosecuted for perjury. I cant remember Red55. My point is i wish the Law applied to everyone equally. Where is the outrage of Clinton and Kennedy breaking the law. Susan Mcdougal sure got her justice. She is only alive because she kept her mouth shut about the law abiding citizens she was in business with. I am Republican and i think Delay is an idiot too. Just like Gingrich was. Any of you Democrats willing to admit that some of your representatives are not the brightest people on earth. Ted Kennedy for President. Now there is a leader. Hilary Clinton for Vice Pres. Then we could have a bush and a prick on the same ticket.
That's a bogus argument. It's not the speech within the ad that's illegal; it's the purchase and running. Under your fallacy I should never be prosecuted for soliciting a prostitute, or even giving her money ahead of the sexual act. Under your premise each of my actions would be protected free speech.
The idea of free speech in America has changed a lot in the last 30 years or so. Read any history of how "free" our speech has been, and you'll find it is far, far, far from the notion that you can say absolutely anything whenever the hell you want. Though I disagree, the rights protected under the 1st Amendment ebb and flow. Rex's point makes sense though. There's a difference between saying things and doing things. I'm unusually disinterested in the "campaign finance" reform in its current iteration. The fact of the matter is that big money buys candidates on both sides, and unless there is a way to remove money from the equation, not a whole lot is going to change. I wouldn't expect this to be an easy (or possible?) remedy, since politics has worked like this since the dawn of government.
of course it is the speech! the ad would be legal if you said something different. it is the content of the ad that matters! they are making a decision on what sort of speech is allowed. you can buy advertising time all you want if you are gonna sell something. but you cannot if you are going to express your political views, because that is seen as a way to aid a candidate outside the money allowed by the laws. political ads for a candidate in particular are the ones you cannot purchase. this takes away your freedom to express your views, PURELY BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THE VIEW.
this is why there was the controversy with the swift boat veterans. they were said to be illegal connections between them and bush. so they are not allowed to say what they please if they are associated with bush? thats clearly a violation of their right to free speech, based on the content of their speech. they should be able to be 100% directed what to say by bush if they want. there should be no such thing as illegal ads or connections. any ad, regardless of purchaser or content should be legal. but it isnt. same thing with moveon.org on th other side. they have to remain independent of the candidate or they are no longer allowed to say what they want in their ads. in fact if i recall correctly i believe bush agreed with some people who were claiming these 527 orgs like moveon and swiftboat vets should be restricted. i guess he wasnt pleased with so much free speech and opinions and debate flying around.
No, it's not. l could say the same thing on a street corner and not break any law. It's not the words that are illegal, it's where it's placed.
