Member Comments

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse

  Posted By: DragonScorpion @ 03/16/2008 2:16:04 PM

  Anyone that doesn't acknowledge the obvious corrupting influence that money has on politics either possesses a naiveté bordering on stupidity or they're just completely dishonest.
  
  Those who advocate for individuals or corporations or organizations to be able to give as much money {and thereby influence} to political candidates as they want as part of protected "free speech" is advocating corruption in politics.
  
  It becomes rather obvious why this is such an issue for Republicans as their chief priority is to
  protect business & preserve wealth at any cost. Of course one must keep in mind, too, that their understanding of what unscrupulous favors money can buy runs deep.

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse

  Posted By: smartprimate @ 03/10/2008 5:06:20 AM

  It all depends on whether the SCOTUS views this as purely a free speech issue or a commercial speech issue. Because money is involved, even with the noble SpeechNow, the Supreme Court can view this as commercial speech. If so, the State can restrict speech if they can demonstrate a substantial interest (see 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island). As a naturalized immigrant I too made a similar oath to ???preserve, protect and defend the Constitution???. This law may be imperfect; and if so it will evolve or die. But to assume that Sen. McCain disregards or is too cavalier with the Constitution because you view it differently is unfair. Nine justices can listen to one argument and come up with up to nine, and sometimes more than nine, opinions. Perhaps an A for effort ??? even McCain???s Legal Advisor Ted Olson would agree with you, but there has to be a start.

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse

  Posted By: smartprimate @ 03/10/2008 5:05:50 AM

  It all depends on whether the SCOTUS views this as purely a free speech issue or a commercial speech issue. Because money is involved, even with the noble SpeechNow, the Supreme Court can view this as commercial speech. If so, the State can restrict speech if they can demonstrate a substantial interest (see 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island). As a naturalized immigrant I too made a similar oath to ???preserve, protect and defend the Constitution???. This law may be imperfect; and if so it will evolve or die. But to assume that Sen. McCain disregards or is too cavalier with the Constitution because you view it differently is unfair. Nine justices can listen to one argument and come up with up to nine, and sometimes more than nine, opinions. Perhaps an A for effort ??? even McCain???s Legal Advisor Ted Olson would agree with you, but there has to be a start.