Plastic pollution in our seas

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not that it may not be a good idea from a policy standpoint, but that it would likely violate rights of free speech & association as defined by the US Sup. Ct.

The US Supreme Court isn't infallible. Free speech is different from anonymous money speech.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

If you mean limits on how much individuals can contribute to a candidate, that's already in place. I was commenting more about your proposal to eliminate PACs, etc. Not that it may not be a good idea from a policy standpoint, but that it would likely violate rights of free speech & association as defined by the US Sup. Ct.

Another good point. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is going exactly the opposite way - with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. More money in politics is the direction of the future in our country.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The US Supreme Court isn't infallible. Free speech is different from anonymous money speech.

You're right. The US Sup Ct is not infallible. But when it comes to interpreting what laws passed by Congress or the states violate the US Constitution, it is in fact final.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Another good point. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is going exactly the opposite way - with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. More money in politics is the direction of the future in our country.

True enough. But Citizens United has practically created its own meme and become its own political rallying cry, and with it's politicization many distortions. The ruling didn't just free up corporations to contribute to political campaigns but also labor unions, advocacy groups, and any other groups of individuals who wish to participate in and influence the political process. In doing so, the decision recognized that money was an indispensable means of communicating political speech, a core 1st Amendment right. Rather than restricting such speech by limiting money spent on its dissemination, it reaffirmed the age old remedy for speech we don't like, namely more speech from a contrarian or different side. So in theory anyway, I like its liberal & expansive interpretation of one of our most important civil rights. As a more pragmatic matter, however, I fear like you do the consequences of yet more money corrupting the process. Perhaps this will lead to finally making term limits more of an imperative.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

In doing so, the decision recognized that money was an indispensable means of communicating political speech, a core 1st Amendment right.

People have 1st Amendment rights. The CU decision gave personhood to anonymous money and removed accountability. Enjoy.

[a64pilot]

Sorry but this thread has gone down the political toilet.
It’s not gotten nasty and gotten people in trouble but I feel it will soon,
So I’m closing it before it does.