0 votes

Very disappointed in DP community response to SCOTUS ruling

The constitution is quite clear:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice it does not state that Congress can only not make such laws on citizens; it just states simply and in absolute terms that Congress "...shall make no law..."

If you find this is not in congruence with your ideology, then you should work on getting the constitution amended, but please do not complain when the courts pass judgments that are strictly in line with the constitution.

A corporation is an inanimate object; a state charter officially recognizing a group of people. It is the people of the organization that have the same rights collectively as they do individually, so how can it be justified to remove those rights for any reason?

It is my opinion that things like this are advantageous for grass roots movements because they can place their own ads and not have to go through all of the campaign B.S. and the law that was overturned was one that protected incumbents, who are the purpose of the existence of many grass-roots movements.

EDIT: To stoke the fire a little more, take a look at what another 'Daily' community has to say:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Congress shall make no law" does not mean Congress

shall make no law except McCain-Feingold. The court finally gets one right, but the consequences are not good. It can happen.
The ruling is good for free speech, bad for representative government.
Even before this a small state like Wyoming could be overwhelmed by big money from other states. Why should citizens from New York or California be able to spend money to affect government in Wyoming? The way it works now every elected office is up for grabs. The SCOTUS just made it worse. It amounts to "election tampering".
This could be entitled, "The Establishment Strikes Back"
This is good for establishment candidates in both parties. This helps Trey Grayson, hurts Rand Paul.
The power of people on the imternet to raise money for independent candidates has been effectively lessened by the powers that be.

Why should citizens from New York or California be able to..."

Don't forget how many people have donated to Ron Paul's Texas campaign. It works both ways.

Haven't forgotten

Why should I be able to affect an election in Texas? Why should those pro RP or anti RP be able to interfere with the election?
That's the problem now, representatives who don't represent the folks back home.
However until the law is changed, we should support RP and Rand.
Living in Kentucky, we Kentuckians should make the decision whether the Republican candidate be Trey Grayson or Rand Paul, but I know that's not how it works anymore.
Sobeit, we do the best we can.


Because once you start to restrict free speech you can not stop it.
The founders understood that their is NO PERFECT SYSTEM. What they gave us is the best system to limit evil. Evil exists and will continue to exist. Bad things happen to good people. The question is what is the best way to limit it. Protecting free speech is part of that.
Long term consequences must be considered not just the immediate effect that is desired.

A principled position

But I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that this decision hurts people like Rand Paul, who might well benefit from the unconstrained grassroots outside-of-the-official-campaign activism that might now be possible because of this SCOTUS decision.

As for a government ban on inter-state direct campaign contributions, you may be able to convince me that this is the right way to go. But I hope that we both agree that we should be able to say, as a group or as individuals, whatever we want (pro or con) about a candidate, using our own money or the money of our self-formed group, no matter how close it is to an election or whether it's "electioneering" in scope.

We don't have representative

We don't have representative government we have democracy which is mob rules and is never good.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

No, we have representative government.

Other than initiatives, that is.


Still disappointed? You have

Still disappointed? You have 100 comments :)

Alternative Candidates

The only hope alternative candidates may have in the face of the dominant parties is often from the support of an individual or individuals within an organization (like a corporation) who are willing to put their money out there to support them.

What's wrong with that? They aren't bribing voters, they're advertising for Pete's sake.

Note that the Court did not invalidate the reporting requirements: voters will still know who paid for the ads.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

What in Ammendment I protects me?

The problem with the strictly constitutional position is it often falls foul to the unconstitutional but clearly pratical role of a body like the FCC. We either have to get rid of the FCC and let the airwaves be a free for all or we impose checks and balances against corps that unfairly benefit by its existence. Which is why we need net neutrality and checks against unlimited political propaganda.

What does "net neutrality"

What does "net neutrality" mean to you?

To me, net neutrality means the federal government telling communication providers how to run their private business. I don't want the federal government telling private businesses how to run their private networks.

Net Neutrality....

Net neutrality is basically saying your internet provider can't block or slowdown select websites. That all websites should be available to you. Abd if you make a website it should be available to everybody and it should be as fast as the service you are paying for.

Basically the same as saying Verizon can't intentionally block you from calling Cingular phone customers or intentionally making Cingular phone calls sound crappy on your Verizon phone.

Do you think your cellphone company should be free to block calls to/and from other cellphone service provider phones or be free to intentionally make the phone call of poor audio quality?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

the term Net Neutrality has flip flopped all over the place

the term Net Neutrality has flip flopped all over the place since it was first introduced and then co-opted by politicians. I'm not even sure what it means anymore. Weebles, You might want to check on the verbiage of any current legislation before you vote yes on Net Neutrality.


This is an absurd comparison, because less government interference in phone service pricing and package structures has led to far lower pricing, incentive for technological development and an ever-greater array of options and services available to consumers. Could a phone provider limit access to whatever numbers they wanted? Yes. Would they? Of course not, it would be corporate suicide. My cell phone provider now gives it's customers free calling to all other cell phones of ANY provider, ALL the time. By your logic, it should be the opposite. Did the company do this because the government regulated them into action? No. Financial necessity due to heavy competition forces prices down in a free market. Why would the same not be true in internet?

Certainly there are internet providers that pull sleazy tactics but they are often quickly outed and so long as there is healthy competition someone else will step in and offer better service or a lower price. It's when government creates monopolies and favored companies and industries through regulation that the consumer suffers. I don't think I'd have a 15Mbps connection if not for heavy competition. I'd still be stuck on 56k if government had stepped in and made it all equal. Rethink your ideas of what companies should have the ability to do. Just because you don't like it does not give you the right to use force of government against it. Otherwise, what happens when someone doesn't like you?

Net neutrality is a lie. And as far as I'm concerned, cell phone companies can do whatever they want to so long as they don't breach contract and you're free to decline doing business with them.


did this by deregulation,it worked!

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

What cell phone provider do you have?

"My cell phone provider now gives it's customers free calling to all other cell phones of ANY provider, ALL the time."

That sounds like a pretty amazing deal- where can I sign up? And how does this phone service make any money?


Sprint, Any Mobile, Any Time plans. Look them up for yourself. :)


That will be $1 per month to access Daily Paul please.

But, wait, our Premier package users are using up most of the bandwidth so Daily Paul will run quite a bit slower. Have to give faster response time to customers who pay more!

For $50 a month we will give you access to 30 websites of your choice!

Also, this months special is file downloads for only $1 per gig!

Do you really want tiered "pay-per-view" type services where access to content is restricted to nickel-and-dime you to death?

Also, the US govt has funded the internet backbone and local fiber-optic outlays in every city and small town in America to the tune of many billions of $$$. Should that be a taxpayer gift to private companies for which you will charged AGAIN?

Nobody is stopping private companies from building their own networks and using them any way they wish. Uncle Sam built the one you are using now.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


McCain is against net neutrality also (hahaha)


You must be a secret McCain agitator. :|

Do you even know what net neutrality is?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I'm not arguing the Constitution

I'm stating the obvious point of the whole post, his ridiculous disappointment in a reaction of a community as if that speaks their opinion...

What Madison wanted the Federal Government to do:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."

Please bring your attention to the following part:
"external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce"

Someone claimed that Madison wouldn't like this decision, but as it's clear, Madison didn't want the government to have a great influence in political campaigns. The main function of the government was managing EXTERNAL affairs.

It's time these kind of people stop making stuff up. Apparently they want a living Constitution or justify things using the commerce clause. I'd recommend they google the "Daily Pelosi".

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. --Thomas Jefferson

What you believe to be true, is true to you... "until you change your mind"

I am convinced....

I am convinced that it is not so much important what is in a "constitution", or that the U.S. Constitution is perfect and worthy of worship, but that the most important function of a constitution in a republic is that it apply equally to all men at all times regardless of status or position of power whether in business or government.

If all men are held accountable equally to a constitution then those same men governed by it will tend to quickly root out the objectionable and dysfunctional parts and change them. For better or worse according to their wisdom.. and also according to, I believe, their concern for others (morality).

*** morality in the Enlightenment sense which could be applied by both the religious and irreligious. A common American Enlightment idea was that a selfish self-serving people only concerned about their own pleasures to the point of expense of others could never have good govt. A nation of Persons who are willing to give up certain absolute rights willingly (without coercion of govt)to benefit others needs fewer laws and govt enforcers because they spend less time engaging in activities that harm others. Along the lines of "I personally choose not to drink because it makes me abuse and neglect my family and get in fights"

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


Quiz time! Who said this?

"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

Hint: his initials are J.M.


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

It's irrelevant

Because it is not the law of the land, nor it relates to the interpretation of it.

Corporations could be regulated by the States, whose powers are numerous and indefinite, but not by the Federal Government. If a state regulates donations by corporations, that would be consistent with Madison. If the Federal Government does it, it would be inconsistent.


Well, I agree with your second statement... but think it's irrelevant to our current crisis.

Would you use rules of chivalry and manners if you were fighting in a war or against some gang thugs?


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

That's what we have to change.

We have to make the Constitution relevant again. That's what Dr. Paul's message is all about. Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The ruling was Constitutional, therefore we should applaud it. It's a step in the right direction.

You are literally advocating trashing the Constitution. I wonder why you are here. The Ron Paul movement is the one that cares about the Constitution the most.

You say what I advocate (following the Constitution) is irrelevant to the current crisis. Tell Dr. Paul that following the Constitution is irrelevant. He'll answer you this: The solution to all our problems can be found in the Constitution. He'll laugh in your face when you tell him that the Constitution is irrelevant.

I don't know who either of

I don't know who either of you are (j and weebles), but I thought Daily Paul was pro-free speech. Smacking each other down on a personal level is not cool, especially because it is a waste of everyone's valuable time and energy. If there are points worth dicussing, discuss them, and make your points with a semblance of courtesy.

What's up......

What's up with the strawmen and the attacks on my character?

STRAWMAN: "You are literally advocating trashing the Constitution." I have openly declared my heartfelt desire and dream to see the Constitution restored. And you KNOW IT.

What is this? --> "I wonder why you are here?"

Are you implying im a secret mole for Obama or the KGB or McCain or Mossad?

Have I made one single attack on your character? Have I implied anything about your beliefs or "hidden" motives merely because we disagree?

The opinion on this topic seems to be split pretty evenly on DP. Are you implying 50% of the posters on this topic have hidden agendas and are working for the "enemy" and/or to bring down Daily Paul/Ron Paul?

STRAWMAN #2: "You say what I advocate (following the Constitution) is irrelevant to the current crisis."

I never said "following the Constitution" is irrelevant to the current crisis. I said defending this SCOTUS ruling on this particular Constitutional tidbit is no reason for celebration when it is only empowering our current illegitimate fascist govt. As such, it is irrelevant to restoring the Constitution or any "celebration".

I'm beginning to think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing (maybe this is what you do for fun) and you are either in a bad mood or are just not a pleasant person in general.

And no, it's no logical reason to applaud a "Constitutional ruling" when it merely empowers abuse by a group of un-Constitutional govt-sanctioned special-privileged business citizens over the ordinary citizens who already have less special treatment and who are experiencing greater financial distress and whose political voice is already marginalized.

Excuuuuuuuuse me for attempting to stand up for the citizens under duress and attack while setting aside some ephemereal adherence to a rule contained in a document that is no longer in force except when convenient for our oppressors. I make no apologies.

The whole benefit of a republic+rule of law+constitution is only when there is a reasonable attempt by the govt to hold all men equally accountable before the law/constitution. That ain't happening right now and I will not celebrate an already extra-privileged class gaining an even greater political voice versus the under-privileged with an already lesser voice.

If you think that's worthy of celebration then go right ahead and pop open some brews and grab a party hat and some noisemakers and party down like it's Mardi Gras.

But your attempts to accuse me of being some secret agent with ill-motives for Daily Paul or Ron Paul or the liberty movement or to undermine the Constitution and your weak attempts at strawmen are merely reflective on your own character. Not mine.


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~