Something I've been wondering for awhile (re: Campaign Finance Reform)

Since when does $$$$="Free Speech"? :shrug: How is putting spending limits on political contributions by corporations, organizations, etc. an abridgement of "free speech" as claimed by opponents of McCain-Feingold? Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the debate? I don't believe that anybody is telling corporations, organizations, etc. that they can't send their lobbyists to the Hill to advocate for their positions but doing so doesn't AFAIK necessitate pumping money into the coffers of our congresscritters (well, we know that our political system "runs" on money- obscene amounts of it at that IMHO) but do opponents of campaign finance reform/contribution limits seriously believe that the "free speech" rights of corporations, organizations, etc. are at risk if they can't contribute insane amounts of (bribe) money to congresscritters?

Thats exactly what they "believe" ..or more correctly , what they "need" to survive and advance their cause.
They would gladly trample the will of the people if it meant their corporate interests were served.

I just had a hard time believing that people could advance such an asinine argument- with a straight face no less (Mitch McConnell has really been out in front on this issue). Wow. That's rather depressing.........but then, I guess, nobody promised me a rose garden either. :crazy:

Basically (sort of) its thought/believed/accepted that our contributions speak for us, so we must be allowed to contribute, AND w/o $, politicians CAN'T speak.

The only way out, as I see it, is TOTALLY government funded campaigns, up and down. I don't think it will ever happen.

The *cynic* in me suggests that it will be a miracle if it EVER happens though.

I leave you with the words of Frederick Douglass, grim words indeed:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others."

Those corporations would rather send 5,000,000 soldiers to die than to give up the advantage they have been afforded under our government.

put paid political advertisements pretty much on the same level as newspapers.

Commercial speech, as in soap commercials, never had the First Amendment protection other speech has, but Buckley somehow managed to say paid political advertisements weren't anything like soap advertisements, so they shouldn't have more restictions than newspaper editorials.

Well, something like that, but that's the idea. Put the kybosh on a lot of spending limits and now lets some people gas on about free speech when it's really very expensive speech.

is the way to do this. I've come to believe that we must work from the outside in because the game is rigged. Here's a link to a great resource on the subject: http://www.national-convention.com/index.html

In that landmark 1976 Supreme Court decision, the court found that a corporation enjoys protection of the 1st Amendment in the area of spending money to influence elections. The Court found that a corporation can be limited as far as direct campaign contributions, but it is free to spend an unlimited amount of money in favor of or against a particular candidate or campaign issue.