The latest misinformation revirberating around the right wing sound chamber

As to the bolded, it is strange, then, that the CU 5:4 vote in the SC strictly went along "partisan" lines. Concurrences: Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia. Dissent: Bader Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor.

Now, it is clear that the GOP believed that unlimited amount of big donor money in politics would benefit THEIR side, because big donor money aligns with the pro-business, free market policies of the GOP. Of course, as always, controversial decisions have unintended consequences. In this case, the GOP failing to anticipate that the Dems could beat them at the big donor game. In general, however, the regular voter loses because their "speech" is obviously worth much less than the "speech" of the big doners, who drown them out with large donations.

Of course, you are trying to rationalize all of this. Why? Because you think it benefits your side. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, like in this case with the "Soros backed" DA, the GOP cries. Typical hypocrisy.

So, I ask the questions again: If money is speech. What is wrong with Soros utilizing his right of free speech, funding candidates that he likes? If DAs (or other public officials) can be dismissed as politicized or unqualified because of private funding that they received, wouldn't hat disqualify ALL DAs and politicians in general?

 

He has the money to flood advertising. That actually means a lot. I would like to see a cap on spending

 

It's been proven time and again.

 

No it hasn't.

 

It doesn't matter. Anyone with any sense knows that Soros' money went Bragg, making Bragg Soros' boy.

 

You’re conflating unrelated issues. Giving corporations “personhood” is ludicrous. Corporations are already owned by people that can vote and contribute to campaigns. Aggregating owners of a corporation into a mega person with mega funds to donate and, giving those individuals the ability to multiply that power with multiple investments is a clear and present danger to society.

 

Corporations can't contribute to political campaigns.

 

Read up on that, won’t you?

 

Like this?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/how-much-can-corporations-give-to-2020-political-campaigns

 

I already have. Here, let me help you...

You people believe what you're told way too often.

 

Sure - me too. We desperately need the campaign season to be shortened and a cap on the spending allowed. America - being the 'famous/celebrity obsessed' capital of the world needs to learn the difference between politics and entertainment!

But back to our original exchange - you said that there was no misinformation. But don't you think Trump declaring that Soros was 'handpicked' was misinformation?

 

Where's the lie? Soros cannot donate a million dollar contribution to an individual directly. Everyone knows this. The Max contribution by an individual to an individual is two thousand dollars. Soros can and does donate huge sums in other ways though. Follow the money and follow the timeline how Bragg became a recipient of his Soros-funded money.

George Soros denies boosting Alvin Bragg despite $1 million donation to left-wing PAC | Washington Examiner

 

Exactly.

Since this is the highest profile investigation in the USA history, this will have been done by the book 100X over.
So there will be as little ambiguity as possible for the detractors.

 

So you can't prove it.

 

Don't expect a concession.

 

Here, I'll raise the flag for them.

 

How exactly do you rationalize that this benefits my side? I am not so sure that the actual numbers back up your assertion. One thing is for certain, my advocacy of supporting free speech rights has not one thing to do with my belief that it benefits my side because I sincerely do not believe that.

Did I say something that led you to believe that I have said that Soros should not be able to spend money to support his chosen candidates? I think there is something sort of perverse about a foreigner doing so and in truth I do not know how our laws apply to foreigners, but I have not said one thing about believing it should be illegal. IMO, people can spend money however they like, and the public can respond to their advocacy however they see fit. If there are federal statutes banning foreign influence that is another conversation aside from Constitutional protections.

I might be tempted to argue that people should oppose the advocacy from foreigners, but in no way does that mean I believe it is banned in the Constitution. There is a price for freedom of speech, but it is a small price to pay in comparison to the alternative where speech is stifled at the whim of the government.

 

Nope, he was picked to get Soros money was he not? Soros could have said no as well but he didn’t.

 

Only democrats get rich due to political positions? Or are you just singling out 1 or some or just 1 party.

I bet republicans get rich also from political positions. In fact, I bet the 2 party system is geared towards that and that is why the 2 party system has a stranglehold on our political system.

 

I see all sorts of bs all over this forum where you don't provide said free service. I call BS, free of charge of course.

 

I suggest you take (alot) time really thinking about what I said.

Good point.

 

Money is not speech, money can only buy things. Speech isn't one of them.

speech
noun
ˈspēch

Synonyms of speech
1
a
: the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words
b
: exchange of spoken words : CONVERSATION

2
a
: something that is spoken : UTTERANCE
b
: a usually public discourse : ADDRESS

3
a
: LANGUAGE, DIALECT
b
: an individual manner or style of speaking

4
: the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

 

Citizens United did not give corporations personhood. That is a mischaracterization perpetuated by the left.

Does “We the People” Include Corporations? (americanbar.org)
"There is a widely held misconception that Citizens United was the first case to create corporate personhood. This claim lands quite wide of the mark. First, the phrase “corporate personhood” does not appear in the opinion at all. Second, Citizens United did not grant corporations personhood. Corporations already had it. "

As far as Citizens United, the resulting difference was merely procedural. Instead of outside money going to the 527 organizations we used to hear so much about such as the swift boat folks, it was then allowed to go directly to candidates where at least the candidate is responsible for the message. Either way, the same money is going to be spent. It would be great if we could get money out of politics. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Where there is a will, there is a way. I prefer to live in reality rather than fantasy.

This issue does not necessarily benefit one side or the other. It is merely a price that we must pay if we want free speech.

 

Nothing much to think about.

 

Then you won't understand my point. Although I doubt a month long reflection on it would make a difference.