Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RLC-Action] Digest Number 241

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Sewell
    Let s move this discussion to RLC-Discuss, instead of Action, please. :) ... From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Let's move this discussion to RLC-Discuss, instead of Action, please. :)

      -----Original Message-----
      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com]On
      Behalf Of Ray Holtorf
      Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:00 AM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Digest Number 241


      I keep going back and forth on the Constitutionality
      of banning money. The Constitution guarantees us the
      right of free speech. While the SCOTUS has equated
      speech and money, I am not certain the Founding
      Fathers would. The language in the document is
      "speech" and does not indicate a right to purchase
      access to speech... I'm not big on the idea of
      interpreting the Constitution.

      --- Peter Bearse <peterjamesbearse@...> wrote:

      > To Bill Westmiller and other RLCers: I spent many
      > years tracking, discussing and analyzing the
      > McCain-Feingold legislation and other efforts to
      > achieve campaign finance reform as a member of the
      > Business Advisory Committee of the Campaign Reform
      > Project. The common denominator of these,
      > ironically, was that they focused only on money.
      > They ignored the value of people's time in a system
      > where time is all that 95% of the American public
      > have to contribute. See the final chapters of my
      > book for a new approach and let me know if you want
      > to see any other pieces that I've written on the
      > issue. A few pieces were "published" online via in
      > the online journal THE ETHICAL SPECTACLE
      > (www.spectacle.org). PETER BEARSE, Ph.D.
      >
      > westmiller@... wrote:
      > RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com writes:
      > > I was one of 800 who responded to the FEC notice
      > ...
      >
      > Excellent!
      > We have quite a few members in DC, but none
      > that
      > have taken up the leadership task or coordinated all
      > the activity.
      >
      > > The Court decision referred to was one passed ...
      >
      > I did read the court case and watched testimony
      > on C-Span, but simply didn't have the time to pursue
      > it beyond being aware.
      >
      > Bill
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      > Visit your group "RLC-Action" on the web.
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
      > to:
      > RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      > Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Mail
      > Use Photomail to share photos without annoying
      attachments.


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com



      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • DGHarrison
      I keep going back and forth on the Constitutionality of banning money. The Constitution guarantees us the right of free speech. While the SCOTUS has equated
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 18, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        <>I keep going back and forth on the Constitutionality of banning money. The Constitution guarantees us the right of free speech. While the SCOTUS has equated speech and money, I am not certain the Founding Fathers would. The language in the document is "speech" and does not indicate a right to purchase access to speech... I'm not big on the idea of interpreting the Constitution. -- Ray Holtorf</>
        <></>
        <>
        Would you please expand on your reasoning here. What are the issues that cause you to vacillate?

        Are you suggesting that the First Amendment only guarantees me the right to speak, but not to be heard? Does that mean anyone who wishes not to hear me can do whatever they want to silence me? Does that mean I have the right to complain about the king in my outhouse, but not on a peach crate? Or that you can go ahead and stand on a peach crate out on an island, separate to yourself, but it would be illegal for me to hire a boat to take me out there to listen to you? Does that mean I can vote if I can run the gantlet to get to the polls?

        The McCain-Feingold Act is an abomination that must be overturned. All it will take is for one blogger to refuse to shut down his blog in the weeks preceding an election. When the goons come to pull the plug on his computer, the blogger files a case before the Supreme Court. McCain-Feingold cannot stand! It is an infringement of free speech, pure and simple. How is it that the First Amendment has come to protect pornography but not political speech? Surely, the Founders did not intend this outcome.

        The only reason McCain-Feingold has survived this long is because Democrats want to use it to silence Republicans, and Republicans want to use it to silence Democrats. This is obnoxious, stinkin' thinkin'!

        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota

        </>


        --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.