Ted Cruz drops bombshell: Senate Democrats to ‘repeal the First Amendment’ this year

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
First of all, when the Supreme Court says a law sucks so it doesn't count, it is the JOB of Congress to at least consider rewriting whatever failed so spectacularly that it reached the 9 Robed Ones in the fist place, let alone went the other way on them.

IT WASN'T THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT FAILED OR WAS ON TRIAL, THOUGH.

The failed law was the McCain-Feingold Act. That's what spectatcularly failed and what they should consider rewriting. Trying to modify the First Amendment to "fit" McCain-Feingold is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

"Someone jimmied this faulty lock on my front door and broke into my house. I'm headed to Lowe's to buy a new steel door but I have to find one that fits this jimmied lock because I don't wanna have to change keys on my keyring."

"I have a virus on my laptop. It's in this file right here. I'm tired of getting porno popups, so I'm gonna go buy a new laptop and do a hard drive transfer so the new computer will have all my old files."

"These generic seat covers with the black velvet tiger on them don't fit my truck because it doesn't have bucket seats. I'm going to go buy a different truck with bucket seats so I can use them."

LOGIC!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The logic is pretty simple, but it's a big picture kind of thing. I'm 100% for totally and absolutely removing corporate money from politics. I'd like to see it in my State as well, but I agree that probably ought to be as they'd propose it. State by State and as intended for 'diversity', as a new application for the word. lol...

Where in that do you see organized labor or unions mentioned or implied? I don't in the legalese terminology that laws pass or fail in and are argued over for a long time to come. I see, where specific at all, it's specific to what will reverse Citizens United for the key point.

Include Labor in that, and any or all organizations that are fully capable of matching or even dwarfing MOST corporate level efforts, and we have a balanced playing field.

Remove ONE without the OTHER, even for ONE major election cycle, IMHO, ...and you've basically made law to set our system to one party by simple numbers and statistics of which side of the population supports which party at the BIG money levels.

All or nothing, IMO, not just because it's fair or needs done ...but because to NOT do all or nothing catastrophically breaks what we actually do have, in a way not likely to be repairable. I'll stand with ya to say all.

*** Lets flip this around, because funding levels are very close.... Lets say an Amendment comes up to satisfy the BIG concern for my end of the politics....to JUST remove Union money from all elections. Is incremental still workable? Catastrophic results simply changed who gets the wrong side of it, I'd think. Half the nation would still get stomped in the vacuum.

I am so goddamn sick of listening to devisive twaddle that keeps people from uniting in common cause for liberty and justice for all....it makes me want to vomit profusely.....

I'm 100% for totally and absolutely removing corporate money from politics.

Why yes the only 'people' allowed to buy elections, and politicians are the people themselves!

Why only 'corporate' money though ?

Billions of dollars flow in from the 3 main sources in American politics.

1. People.
2. Unions.
3 Them evil corporations.

But someone needs to clear up the confusion here.

The largest employers in this country are SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

A prime example of this was those morons 'protesting' at McDonalds 'corporate' headquarters which is a MULTINATIONAL company.

Small business owners called franchise operators are effected by federal laws more than anyone.

So should a small business owner that franchise operator be allowed to spend money fighting against laws that they KNOW will kill their business ?

Hell YEAH the should.

Point of fact most if not all multinational corporations make the bulk of their wealth offshore in other countries, and are not subject to 'US LAW'.

So when people villify 'corporate' money they do need to clarify since anyone who wants to do business in the country LARGE or small has to incorporate.

That is the 'law'.

a reply to: neo96

So should a small business owner that franchise operator be allowed to spend money fighting against laws that they KNOW will kill their business ?

Less Big Money in politics, less laws that negatively effect small business . . .

a reply to: Kali74

Less Big Money in politics, less laws that negatively effect small business . . .

What is the difference then eh ?

Big or small ?

Buying elections is BUYING elections.

a reply to: olaru12

Miss you Sarah!!!

I wonder what she's seeing in Russia from her backyard nowadays....?

There is only ONE WAY to get money out of politics.

Shrink the size, and power of government.

The bigger,more power those shills on capitol hill take ?

The more cash they get.

And the bulk of that cash is primarily used on TV, and Radio ads saying 'Vote for me, the other guy sucks more'.

a reply to: neo96

Sorry a buisness or co operation is not a person, it should have NO political power in itself.

If it wants to have any influence then the people who make it up can vote for candidates in its favour. Its power and influence should be no diffrent than anyone elses.

a reply to: schuyler

Well said. I 100% agree.

All the Libs are here bashing Ted. What's new. It's almost amusing.

a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry a buisness or co operation is not a person, it should have NO political power in itself.

Feel the same way about unions then eh ?

If it wants to have any influence then the people who make it up can vote for candidates in its favour. Its power and influence should be no diffrent than anyone elses.

Fits unions there to.

But for some odd reason quite a few people want to act like nazi book burners making the field lopsided.

Anyone should be able to give money to whoever the eff they want.

Be it them evil corporations, then unions or people.

Myself I have better things to be spending my cash on.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

So this bills says it's okay for a majority Republican Congress to decide how much a Democrat candidate can spend in an election?

Works both ways, doesn't it? Sen. Cruz is using a bit of metaphor, which literal leftists choose to not understand so they can make fun of it, but he is fundamentally correct. "Free speech" includes my giving my money to whomever I like to promise their election. The left has no problem at all with George Soros setting up a huge PAC to fight the GOP and doesn't blink an eye when Michael Bloomberg announces he's going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on anti-gun issues. If some leftist "green billionaire" announces he's going to spend a fortune against "climate denying anti science Republicans" the left cheers in unison. But let the Koch brothers give $10 grand to anyone at all and a huge hue and cry goes out about the unfairness of it all.

The basic idea here is for the left to stifle the right in any way they can and for the right to stifle the left in the same way. It's a game if one-upmanship with the goal to have "God on your side" in the way of public support and/or outrage.

The left sees the half they want to see. And of the right were behind this, it would be the opposite.

And the sheeple go along with it.

In other words,

You, Ted and the GOP approve, support and defend the corporate take over of the American electoral system via monied influence and manipulation.

Got it.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: schuyler

Well said. I 100% agree.

All the Libs are here bashing Ted. What's new. It's almost amusing.

Poor Ted the flaming neocon

He is such a victim.

You are yet another "conservative" who closes their eyes to corporatism that is rife in conservatisms back room planning.

a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

You, Ted and the GOP approve, support and defend the corporate take over of the American electoral system via monied influence and manipulation.

Hows that ?

The largest 'corporation' in the world is the US federal government.

Who prints it's own money.

Who makes people pay them for working.

Who is this countries largest 'healthcare' provider'.

Who is legislating what 'corporate' products the little people get to have.

The 'takeover' was completed long before Cruz ever came on to the scene.

But hey who gives an eff.

Back to the senseless, ENDLESS corporate vilification that comes straight out of them communist manifesto

That has been white washed, 'humanized' for the 'new' generation.

For the record this biggest corporatists are GOP opposites.

Free, cell phones,education,healthcare,homes ALL CORPORATE products.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
Pretty sure you need a Constitutional Convention to do any Amendment repealing. Maybe the Senate thinks they have that much power, but they don't.

Yes, you are correct, it is not that easy to do, but I wouldn't put it past this group to at least try. After all, 70 members of Congress have been known to be also members of DSA(although a few no long Congress), so it is not surprising that they want to see if they can change our Constitution and Bill of Rights. After all, they passed that monstrosity of a healthcare bill without even reading it.

The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

law2.umkc.edu...

If this were to pass both will get hurt but the GOP will get hit harder. Media bias leans left 80% or more . If the media was impartial I would say good riddance to out side money. But they are not .

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry a buisness or co operation is not a person, it should have NO political power in itself.

Feel the same way about unions then eh ?

If it wants to have any influence then the people who make it up can vote for candidates in its favour. Its power and influence should be no diffrent than anyone elses.

Fits unions there to.

But for some odd reason quite a few people want to act like nazi book burners making the field lopsided.

Anyone should be able to give money to whoever the eff they want.

Be it them evil corporations, then unions or people.

Myself I have better things to be spending my cash on.

Actually yeah im no fan of unions pokeing there nose in it too.

Politics should be for the people only, not special intrest groups,

Everyone get one vote, and it should be the people with that vote that hold the power, not unions, co operations or any other enity.

a reply to: crazyewok

But votes don't effing matter to begin with.

US elections are decided by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

a reply to: neo96

Thus you remove the ability to buy elections.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: schuyler

Well said. I 100% agree.

All the Libs are here bashing Ted. What's new. It's almost amusing.

That's because Ted is an idiot and him saying this will repeal the first amendment proves it. This bill in no way repeals the first amendment. And seeing how the morons on the supreme court claims that money is free speech then it does need to be changed. Free speech is supposed to be equal for everyone and seeing how everyone isn't a billionaire that can give millions to elections then there has to be something placed in there to give everyone equal footing.

You may wanted to do a little checking because there are both right wing and left wing supporters in this thread that are against big money being able to buy elections.