Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Democratic Rep: Amend Constitution To Allow Control Of Speech

Posted by   + Show Post

ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) - A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.

He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.

In a video obtained by the website, Johnson asserts that “corporations control … patterns of thinking.”

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/democratic-rep-amend-constitution-to-allow-control-of-speech/


by on Nov. 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM
Replies (11-20):
autodidact
by Silver Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 4:03 PM

corporations AREN'T people, my friend. 

Friday
by Platinum Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I don't think corps or unions are 'persons' and do agree with limiting their campaign contributions. The corp and union control of our govt is way out of hand. Something does need to be done about it.


Church of The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves)

Raintree
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Quoting jcrew6:




No. It defines 'speech' as $.
rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Yes, and I think that all needs to be included in reform. However, without money, there would be no commercials, videos, and etc. If you restrict the money, you restrict the production.

There may have been no disastrous  impacts this time, but what will this influx of even more cash into an already overly bloated election system be over time? 

Quoting jcrew6:

It's not just money. It's commercials, videos, movies, etc. IMO, Creating restrictions brings about more back room deals and money ciphering.
Fact of the matter, this ruling didn't have the disastrous impact many thought it would. The proof is in the 2012 elections.


Quoting rccmom:

That's a good question. I do not think that money should equate to speech. I think there needs to be limits on how much money can be spent on a candidate. I know it would be very hard to enact, but I would like to see campaign reform where each candidate is alloted only so much money, and only so many months in which campaigning may take place in.


I think the way money is used in poltics has a lot to do with all elections. I think it limits us to using only candidates that can raise money well, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. It takes the candidates away from their actual job of running the country to go out and campaign for more and more money to keep up with the other guy. Throwing this extra bit of cash and corporations into the mix just makes it that much worse.


Did it affect this campaign? I don't know, but it most likely did. They say the money spent by the Repubs actually accomplished very little, but I am sure all the money certainly muddies the waters and  does not lend itself to a truthful and thoughtful discussion of the issues.



 


Quoting jcrew6:

What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?






Quoting rccmom:


I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.




 



jcrew6
by Jenney on Dec. 2, 2012 at 3:17 AM
1 mom liked this

If you restrict the production you restrict the expression and speech, thus taking away freedom. 

Quoting rccmom:

Yes, and I think that all needs to be included in reform. However, without money, there would be no commercials, videos, and etc. If you restrict the money, you restrict the production.

There may have been no disastrous  impacts this time, but what will this influx of even more cash into an already overly bloated election system be over time? 

Quoting jcrew6:

It's not just money. It's commercials, videos, movies, etc. IMO, Creating restrictions brings about more back room deals and money ciphering.
Fact of the matter, this ruling didn't have the disastrous impact many thought it would. The proof is in the 2012 elections.


Quoting rccmom:

That's a good question. I do not think that money should equate to speech. I think there needs to be limits on how much money can be spent on a candidate. I know it would be very hard to enact, but I would like to see campaign reform where each candidate is alloted only so much money, and only so many months in which campaigning may take place in.


I think the way money is used in poltics has a lot to do with all elections. I think it limits us to using only candidates that can raise money well, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. It takes the candidates away from their actual job of running the country to go out and campaign for more and more money to keep up with the other guy. Throwing this extra bit of cash and corporations into the mix just makes it that much worse.


Did it affect this campaign? I don't know, but it most likely did. They say the money spent by the Repubs actually accomplished very little, but I am sure all the money certainly muddies the waters and  does not lend itself to a truthful and thoughtful discussion of the issues.



 


Quoting jcrew6:

What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?






Quoting rccmom:


I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.








Citygirlk
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 8:52 AM
So one guy speaks for all of us now? because thats all im getting from this post and its replies.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM

You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater because it is dangerous. You cannot speak libel against someone without it becoming a legal matter and you paying a penalty for that speech. There are already ways then that we restrict freedom of speech if that "freedom" would cause harm. Overall, this freedom to spend money, and I still contest that money is not the same a speech, is harming the democratic process.

If I restrict their money, they can still say what they want. No actual human being is being restricted from speaking  his or her mind. They can still do low budget advertising, I am sure, but I bet it would definitely tone down how much adverstising there is.    

I know it is not a popular idea, or one easily accomplished, but I think it would benefit the democratic process and do a better job preserving the rights of individuals against corporations. Toning down the huge amounts of money would allow more individual voices be heard, and increase the overall amount of freedom of speech.

Quoting jcrew6:

If you restrict the production you restrict the expression and speech, thus taking away freedom. 

Quoting rccmom:

Yes, and I think that all needs to be included in reform. However, without money, there would be no commercials, videos, and etc. If you restrict the money, you restrict the production.

There may have been no disastrous  impacts this time, but what will this influx of even more cash into an already overly bloated election system be over time? 

Quoting jcrew6:

It's not just money. It's commercials, videos, movies, etc. IMO, Creating restrictions brings about more back room deals and money ciphering.
Fact of the matter, this ruling didn't have the disastrous impact many thought it would. The proof is in the 2012 elections.


Quoting rccmom:

That's a good question. I do not think that money should equate to speech. I think there needs to be limits on how much money can be spent on a candidate. I know it would be very hard to enact, but I would like to see campaign reform where each candidate is alloted only so much money, and only so many months in which campaigning may take place in.


I think the way money is used in poltics has a lot to do with all elections. I think it limits us to using only candidates that can raise money well, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. It takes the candidates away from their actual job of running the country to go out and campaign for more and more money to keep up with the other guy. Throwing this extra bit of cash and corporations into the mix just makes it that much worse.


Did it affect this campaign? I don't know, but it most likely did. They say the money spent by the Repubs actually accomplished very little, but I am sure all the money certainly muddies the waters and  does not lend itself to a truthful and thoughtful discussion of the issues.



 


Quoting jcrew6:

What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?






Quoting rccmom:


I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.




 


 

 


jcrew6
by Jenney on Dec. 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Your words are a big circle.   The 2012 elections/democratic process wasn't harmed.  If so, share the evidence that has you believing it was.  

Quoting rccmom:

You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater because it is dangerous. You cannot speak libel against someone without it becoming a legal matter and you paying a penalty for that speech. There are already ways then that we restrict freedom of speech if that "freedom" would cause harm. Overall, this freedom to spend money, and I still contest that money is not the same a speech, is harming the democratic process.

If I restrict their money, they can still say what they want. No actual human being is being restricted from speaking  his or her mind. They can still do low budget advertising, I am sure, but I bet it would definitely tone down how much adverstising there is.    

I know it is not a popular idea, or one easily accomplished, but I think it would benefit the democratic process and do a better job preserving the rights of individuals against corporations. Toning down the huge amounts of money would allow more individual voices be heard, and increase the overall amount of freedom of speech.

Quoting jcrew6:

If you restrict the production you restrict the expression and speech, thus taking away freedom. 

Quoting rccmom:

Yes, and I think that all needs to be included in reform. However, without money, there would be no commercials, videos, and etc. If you restrict the money, you restrict the production.

There may have been no disastrous  impacts this time, but what will this influx of even more cash into an already overly bloated election system be over time? 

Quoting jcrew6:

It's not just money. It's commercials, videos, movies, etc. IMO, Creating restrictions brings about more back room deals and money ciphering.
Fact of the matter, this ruling didn't have the disastrous impact many thought it would. The proof is in the 2012 elections.


Quoting rccmom:

That's a good question. I do not think that money should equate to speech. I think there needs to be limits on how much money can be spent on a candidate. I know it would be very hard to enact, but I would like to see campaign reform where each candidate is alloted only so much money, and only so many months in which campaigning may take place in.


I think the way money is used in poltics has a lot to do with all elections. I think it limits us to using only candidates that can raise money well, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. It takes the candidates away from their actual job of running the country to go out and campaign for more and more money to keep up with the other guy. Throwing this extra bit of cash and corporations into the mix just makes it that much worse.


Did it affect this campaign? I don't know, but it most likely did. They say the money spent by the Repubs actually accomplished very little, but I am sure all the money certainly muddies the waters and  does not lend itself to a truthful and thoughtful discussion of the issues.



 


Quoting jcrew6:

What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?






Quoting rccmom:


I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.










jcrew6
by Jenney on Dec. 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM
1 mom liked this

Then you aren't getting it.   But I'm not surprised. 

Quoting Citygirlk:

So one guy speaks for all of us now? because thats all im getting from this post and its replies.


rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I can  understand why you are saying that, but I don't agree. You assert that the 2012 process was not harmed, but I assert the process has already been harmed. You cannot prove that things may not have turned out differently if money had played a lesser role in 2012. Jon Huntsman had problems with funding, but perhaps if money was not such an issue, he could have stayed in the race longer. That may have changed the race because people did not really have enough time to get to know Huntsman, IMO.

Also, as I stated earlier, the need for large amounts of money limits our selection of candidates. Who out there may be more than qualified than either Obama or Romney, but simply lacks the funding. It also forces our people in office to spend far too much time campaigning for funds rather than concentrating on running the govt. So, money has already negatively affected the process, and the more money you can use, the more negative of an affect it is likely to have.

Quoting jcrew6:

Your words are a big circle.   The 2012 elections/democratic process wasn't harmed.  If so, share the evidence that has you believing it was.  

Quoting rccmom:

You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater because it is dangerous. You cannot speak libel against someone without it becoming a legal matter and you paying a penalty for that speech. There are already ways then that we restrict freedom of speech if that "freedom" would cause harm. Overall, this freedom to spend money, and I still contest that money is not the same a speech, is harming the democratic process.

If I restrict their money, they can still say what they want. No actual human being is being restricted from speaking  his or her mind. They can still do low budget advertising, I am sure, but I bet it would definitely tone down how much adverstising there is.    

I know it is not a popular idea, or one easily accomplished, but I think it would benefit the democratic process and do a better job preserving the rights of individuals against corporations. Toning down the huge amounts of money would allow more individual voices be heard, and increase the overall amount of freedom of speech.

Quoting jcrew6:

If you restrict the production you restrict the expression and speech, thus taking away freedom. 

Quoting rccmom:

Yes, and I think that all needs to be included in reform. However, without money, there would be no commercials, videos, and etc. If you restrict the money, you restrict the production.

There may have been no disastrous  impacts this time, but what will this influx of even more cash into an already overly bloated election system be over time? 

Quoting jcrew6:

It's not just money. It's commercials, videos, movies, etc. IMO, Creating restrictions brings about more back room deals and money ciphering.
Fact of the matter, this ruling didn't have the disastrous impact many thought it would. The proof is in the 2012 elections.


Quoting rccmom:

That's a good question. I do not think that money should equate to speech. I think there needs to be limits on how much money can be spent on a candidate. I know it would be very hard to enact, but I would like to see campaign reform where each candidate is alloted only so much money, and only so many months in which campaigning may take place in.


I think the way money is used in poltics has a lot to do with all elections. I think it limits us to using only candidates that can raise money well, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. It takes the candidates away from their actual job of running the country to go out and campaign for more and more money to keep up with the other guy. Throwing this extra bit of cash and corporations into the mix just makes it that much worse.


Did it affect this campaign? I don't know, but it most likely did. They say the money spent by the Repubs actually accomplished very little, but I am sure all the money certainly muddies the waters and  does not lend itself to a truthful and thoughtful discussion of the issues.



 


Quoting jcrew6:

What part of the ruling would you like to discuss? Do you think the ruling changed the way the 2012 election played out?






Quoting rccmom:


I guess I don't agree that a corporation is a person. So, how does free speech apply to them? It was a stupid ruling that has allowed tons of money to be used now on campaigning.




 


 

 

 

 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)