From: [email protected]
Date: Monday, May 7, 2012, 12:02 PM
Richard, Can you send me the content that offended you --
From: [email protected]****
Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 12:02 PM
Thanks for asking. This is part of the offensive post on 5/5/12: "NANCY PELOSI and the Democrats want to AMEND the United States Constitution, and END Freedom of Speech in America … If they determine you are acting in collaboration with another individual, or individuals, YOUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS WILL CEASE TO EXIST… Don’t let them take away our First Amendment rights!"
No, they've figured out they're put at a financial disadvantage by the Citizens United decision--even though unions can create PACs--so they want to overturn it by the perfectly legal process of amending the Constitution. (If it had resulted in more money for Dems, you can be sure they'd be all for it!)
The problem is that the Citizens United decision really is wrong, because it clearly does nothing to protect individuals' rights, which are what the Bill of Rights protects. Our "unalienable rights" are supposed to be innate properties of individual human beings, not of collectives. The Court has just granted LEGAL rights to collectives that had no INNATE rights to protect in the first place.
Here's my argument restated, from my Facebook page, April 21: "NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS: I unexpectedly found myself agreeing with Public Citizen today, and I actually signed their petition to rein-in the Citizens United court decision. The problem is that the Supreme Court has granted free speech rights to collectives like corporate (and other) PACs, whose free speech rights aren’t in the Constitution. That’s because natural rights inhere in individual people, not collectives. What we have here is a reductio ad absurdum, the result of limiting individuals’ right of free political speech (only so many $$$), this monstrosity of faceless PACs being allowed to spend ad infinitum."
That's just the opposite of how it should be.