Author Topic: Clean Govt Vrs. Free Speech (Read 278 times)

Gunslinger · « **on:** April 30, 2006, 09:03:43 AM »

Quote

"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government." John Mcain R AZ

Here's the Context http://www.vmsdigital.com/download/042406/NDC113991_01DIS.MPG

Do you agree or disagree with the senator and why?

One argument could be made that he is correct. If the govt itself is corrupted under the guise of free speech it will no longer be the govt of the people.

The flipside would be and errosion of free speech historically leads to errosion of other rights. Corrupt govt or not without free speech how do we speak out and petition said govt.

Sandman · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2006, 02:54:08 PM »

Well... somewhere somehow, we must find a way to balance free speech with bribery.

How far does it go before we become an oligarchy?

Tarmac · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2006, 03:03:28 PM »

I've never understood the "free speech" justification for our campaign financing system. Free speech is just that... speech, not giving money.

Our representatives are the only people who are expected to survive on bribes and then pretend those bribes do not affect their decisions. It's impossible. Next time you get pulled over, hand the cop $100 and claim free speech when you're in court on bribery charges. The double standard just doesn't make sense.

Sandman · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2006, 03:50:40 PM »

A cop is not your representative. He does not speak for you.

Stang · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2006, 04:07:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Well... somewhere somehow, we must find a way to balance free speech with bribery.

How far does it go before we become an oligarchy?

Before? Seems we're already there. Especially if Hillary gets elected. That would make our last 4 presidents a Bush, Clinton, Bush and then a Clinton. Pathetic.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #5 on:** April 30, 2006, 04:43:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
I've never understood the "free speech" justification for our campaign financing system. Free speech is just that... speech, not giving money.

Our representatives are the only people who are expected to survive on bribes and then pretend those bribes do not affect their decisions. It's impossible. Next time you get pulled over, hand the cop $100 and claim free speech when you're in court on bribery charges. The double standard just doesn't make sense.

It's the fact that you cannot run a political broadcast or commercial with in so many days of an election. CFR also regulates who can say what, and in some cases mandates equal time for both canidates.

Running an election is the essence of petitioning your government against greiviences (SP). I think Their hearts where in the right place, IE trying to remove some of the money from politics, but sadly it was at the cost of free speech.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #6 on:** April 30, 2006, 07:02:16 PM »

I think it is time to require our representatives in congress to stay in the state or district they represent and telecommute.

When I could drive to the next county and talk face to face with my senator, it would give me a greater voice and lower the influence of lobbists and special interests.

Sandman · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2006, 07:03:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think it is time to require our representatives in congress to stay in the state or district they represent and telecommute.

When I could drive to the next county and talk face to face with my senator, it would give me a greater voice and lower the influence of lobbists and special interests.

Brilliant. This is the information age. There is no reason that our elected representatives need to leave their home states.

Fishu · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2006, 07:11:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
A cop is not your representative. He does not speak for you.

Who are the representives representing in the states? The people or an invidual?
If "bribing" is a form of free speech, then I'd say they're representing an invidual, which doesn't sound that democratic to me.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2006, 08:59:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Who are the representives representing in the states? The people or an invidual?
If "bribing" is a form of free speech, then I'd say they're representing an invidual, which doesn't sound that democratic to me.

Fishu it happens like this.

Person X wants to get elected to congress. In order to get elected he needs to run a campaign. Campaigns cost millions of dollars. Money buys influence and it's usually the special interest groups that donate the most. Those would be your corporations, PACs, Labor Unions, ect ect.

All this money in politics has bought elected officials to do the bidding of the few rather than the many. This is the problem with money in politics.

Holden I think that's a brilliant Idea.

Tarmac · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2006, 12:17:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
A cop is not your representative. He does not speak for you.

Speaking for me has nothing to do with it. The cop is a public official, paid to do what is right without taking into account personal gain. A representative is also a public official, paid to do what is right without personal gain.

Of course the next logical argument is that a campaign contribution is not for the representative's personal gain, and if I believed that was true I wouldn't have such a problem with the current system.