Nancy Pelosi Trying to Limit Free Speech

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/shame-nancy-pelosi-trying-limit-free-speech-215100327.html

By Tara Dodrill | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 22 hrs ago

COMMENTARY | Just when you thought Nancy Pelosi had run out of incredibly absurd ideas, she embarks on an attack of the First Amendment.

Yes folks, the woman who suggested passing a bill to find out what is in it now wants to inhibit free speech. During a Democratic forum to discuss amending the Constitution earlier this week Pelosi promoted her "clear agenda" to limit free speech of corporations in an effort to control special interest campaign money, according to Hot Air.

As usual, Pelosi is working on a far-left liberal agenda which is anything but transparent. The limits on free speech and political spending would apply to businesses but not unincorporated unions.

Limiting special interest group influence on political campaigns is a fine idea, but tinkering with the First Amendment is not the way to accomplish the task. Twisting the principles which America was founded upon is an idea so offensive that even far-left liberal voters should be offended. CNS News reports that People for the American Way and Common Cause are joining Pelosi's in her quest to limit free speech.

Even if Pelosi and her cohorts were successful, reducing the right to free speech would not inhibit corporations from donating massive amounts of money to political campaigns. The proposed amendment would only mandate that corporations use political action committees (PAC) instead of general treasury funds to support candidates, according to CNS News. The infringement upon free speech would create more work for government accountants but not halt political spending.

The amendment would reverse the 2010 Supreme Court decision on federal elections policies which found free speech rights apply to both corporations and individuals, The Blaze reports. As Chief Justice John Roberts so aptly noted, newspaper, radio, Internet, film and book publishers should not be censored by the government. If the decision is overturned, even posters with a political theme would be banned if produced with corporate funds.

The Blaze notes Pelosi's proposed amendment states in Section 3 that freedom of the press will not be limited. The amendment would create unnecessary hurdles for publishers by forcing the formation of a PAC to pay for articles, broadcasts or videos which are political in nature.

Small radio stations and newspapers would struggle to survive with such added daily accounting burdens.

A free press is necessary for the exchange of ideas and to serve as a watchdog against government corruption.

Tara Dodrill is a political, eco-green and travel writer. She is a former elected official and has worked as a newspaper journalist, editor and photographer.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Can't corporations still exercise their freedom of speech by campaigning for the candidate and slapping their firm names on the ads etc? Basically I question why a corporation has the right to freedom of speech but is free of the consequences of free speech.

[james&olya 1,121]

Corporations are NOT people and should not get bill of rights protections! Unions probably should not either, but they certainly seem a bit closer than a corporation.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Corporations are NOT people and should not get bill of rights protections! Unions probably should not either, but they certainly seem a bit closer than a corporation.

Unions ARE corporations.

When we expect corporations to pay a large amount of the tax bill by collecting tax from their customers, shareholders and employees, isn't it incredible how they want to have input?

So lets start there. FAIR TAX. Eliminate ALL corporate tax of any type for any reason, after all they really do not "pay tax" they merely "collect tax" from others. Not only would this make us the most attractive location in the world to do business, it would eliminate most of the need for corporations to participate in politics, and most of the reason for politicians to play games with our source of revenue. Taking politics out of the country's revenue stream would go a long way to increase our freedoms and the process we set up this country for.

Then...Term limits. Sorry I do not agree with term limits in principal. WE are supposed to limit their terms, but it does not seem to work that way and the concept of "public service" in the legislative areana has been long lost and replaced by "government careers". There was a larger turnover of legislators in the FSU than there is in our congress. TWO TERMS and out...for life. Choose your poison, house, senate, whatever...two terms and GTFO. No special retirement package, SS like the rest of us, or IRAs, whatever. Also a lot less incentive to collect campaign donations and a lot more incentive to serve the public.

Eliminate the ability of politicians to KEEP campaign donations for themselves after they get out of office. YES they can, and they just pay income tax on the money, though they probably avoid most of that with the tax loopholes they wrote for themselves. Unused donations for campaigns go to the general fund for use to pay down the debt.

Limit campaign spending, NOT donations. What is the need for billions in campaign funds if they cannot use them? They cannot keep them? $XXXXXX dollars for the house, for the Senate and for President. NO PACs. NO party advertising. Political ads should be treated about like ads for alcohol or tobacco.

Eliminate primary elections. They are not needed, are not a government function, they area pary function. Let the parties select their own candidates at conventions they pay for like they used to. Eliminate the need for primary advertising. It also eliminates all campagning of any sort until after the political party conventions, so 2-3 months instead of a continuous election cycle that begins the day after the next election.

As with many other issues, the solutions are known and are relatively simple but no one addresses them becasue they will WORK and we cannot expect the politicians to tear down the nest they have built for themselves. Probably the place to start is term limits...for that very reason.

[james&olya 1,121]

Unions ARE corporations.

When we expect corporations to pay a large amount of the tax bill by collecting tax from their customers, shareholders and employees, isn't it incredible how they want to have input?

So lets start there. FAIR TAX. Eliminate ALL corporate tax of any type for any reason, after all they really do not "pay tax" they merely "collect tax" from others. Not only would this make us the most attractive location in the world to do business, it would eliminate most of the need for corporations to participate in politics, and most of the reason for politicians to play games with our source of revenue. Taking politics out of the country's revenue stream would go a long way to increase our freedoms and the process we set up this country for.

Then...Term limits. Sorry I do not agree with term limits in principal. WE are supposed to limit their terms, but it does not seem to work that way and the concept of "public service" in the legislative areana has been long lost and replaced by "government careers". There was a larger turnover of legislators in the FSU than there is in our congress. TWO TERMS and out...for life. Choose your poison, house, senate, whatever...two terms and GTFO. No special retirement package, SS like the rest of us, or IRAs, whatever. Also a lot less incentive to collect campaign donations and a lot more incentive to serve the public.

Eliminate the ability of politicians to KEEP campaign donations for themselves after they get out of office. YES they can, and they just pay income tax on the money, though they probably avoid most of that with the tax loopholes they wrote for themselves. Unused donations for campaigns go to the general fund for use to pay down the debt.

Limit campaign spending, NOT donations. What is the need for billions in campaign funds if they cannot use them? They cannot keep them? $XXXXXX dollars for the house, for the Senate and for President. NO PACs. NO party advertising. Political ads should be treated about like ads for alcohol or tobacco.

Eliminate primary elections. They are not needed, are not a government function, they area pary function. Let the parties select their own candidates at conventions they pay for like they used to. Eliminate the need for primary advertising. It also eliminates all campagning of any sort until after the political party conventions, so 2-3 months instead of a continuous election cycle that begins the day after the next election.

As with many other issues, the solutions are known and are relatively simple but no one addresses them becasue they will WORK and we cannot expect the politicians to tear down the nest they have built for themselves. Probably the place to start is term limits...for that very reason.

One of the biggest sources of corruption has to do with the revolving doors between our legislative bodies and lobbying groups, regulatory agencies and the industries they regulate. These doors must be securely shut and locked!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Again another example of how Ayn Rand (despite Steven's objections) was 100$ right.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

She should get plastic surgery instead. She is one ugly beeatch.

[Leatherneck 693]

The Bill of Rights would become the Bill of No Rights, if Nancy had her way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

One of the biggest sources of corruption has to do with the revolving doors between our legislative bodies and lobbying groups, regulatory agencies and the industries they regulate. These doors must be securely shut and locked!

And how much of that has to do with the tax code? Any idea? Congress says "We will give you something for free and make corporations and the rich pay for it" The corporations pay their K street lobbyists to rewrite the tax code so it does not make them pay or adds some new loophole to the code so they really don't pay and even if they do, they just collect the tax from you...or their shareholders...or their employees in reduced benefits or less pay increases next cycle. The FAIR TAX would eliminate all that which is why lobbyists hate it.

Making it illegal for former congress people to become lobbyists would also help. Heck we need to make the position of legislator so distasteful that we have to implement a DRAFT to get people for the job! THEN we will get something done. Congress should be in session no more than 6 months per year from gavel to gavel (I doubt they are in session 180 days per year now, but that is what I mean) They start January 2 and go home for 4th of July. That's it for the year. Every 4th year NO NEW LEGISLATION can be passed, only repeal of useless laws.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Where do I apply for a free speech permit?