Now they want billionaires to have the same "freedom of speech" as corporations! See here.....

Has anyone gotten this email today from Alan Grayson, asking for you to sign a petition to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court?

I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone! Please spread this information around to everyone you know.

Thanks.


http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6&tag=012610_email_court

same rights as everyone else? Being wealthy isn't a crime... yet.

in the political process, shouldn't they?

I mean- that's only fair, right?

are apportioned to one candidate (especially state and local candidates and judges) -as well as on initiatives.

Of course we also need to be certain that no accountability mechanisms are put back in place- so that one side can lie and distort with impunity- with the other incapable of effectively responding (much less, getting out their own affirmative framing and narrative).

Democrat Martha Coakley outspent Republican Scott Brown by 5:1 and still got clobbered.

She was a shitty candidate. All the money in the world couldn't have saved her.

I have a question. Don't the billionairs NOW already do that? Remember those couple of Tx. guys who put together the "serving in Vietnam" campaign against Kerry in order to get GWB elected? Anybody with $$, both indiv. and Corps, will find a way to "buy their candidate" if they really want to, and they've been doing it for a long time!

how far are we from completely turning into an "Untouchable" caste system?

"Oh, I'm sorry, you cannot afford your rights accorded under the 1st Amendment."

sell off rights to the highest bidder

Winning bidder gets exclusive ownership to the "right"

I can't find any details about this newest case. I clicked on the link, but it doesn't really say much.

I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone, too!

Generally a good thing. Grayson's blurb shouts emotions to ignorance but illuminates much. Generally not a good thing.

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow.shtml

There seem to be two issues.

The first is whether an unincorporated non-profit organization has the right to spend more than $1k to influence elections before registering as a PAC.

The second is challenging the limit on donations to PACs or other such organizations.

The first is humorous, all things considered. People have been saying how horrible it is that corporations now have the right free speech, only people do. Now Grayson is saying how horrible it is that people want the right to free speech if they even minimally organize--they should be forced to form the appropriate kind of licensed corporation. I can't have an opinion on this. Perhaps after it's lost its amusement value.

The second is a losing proposition. I think that the holding will be that limits on the amount of free speech will be found to have an legitimate, compelling government purpose; that many judges will disagree with the limits in place, but not with the principle in principle. This seems to ask not for the limits provided by statute to be struck down but for any limits provided by statute to be struck down.

Unfortunately.