Wednesday, April 05, 2006

GOP votes against the First Amendment

Read it here.

Reason number umpty-ump why I am insulted if you call me a Republican.

3 comments:

Daniel H. Conway said...

You know, sitting on the left, this disadvantages folks I would prefer in office. But this is just politics. If I wanted to contribute, I could do it to the Democratic party like Republicans do, not try to cheat a tax law by sending it to a non-profit. If Democrats get in office, then this will change. The K street project will change hands, and some Democrat will do the filthy work of Santorum for the Democratic party.

Its kind of like the gerrymandered voting districts-hell yeah, Republicans created Republican strong voting distrticts that likely marginalized minority voters, that was not the intent, they just wanted Republican districts and minorities do not vote for them.

I choose to rig the system to favor me-this is our way of life. If I do not, then it will be rigged in favor of someone else.

This is just the way our "filthy, rotten system" works. I expect nothing more.

Father Martin Fox said...

I see nothing "filthy" or "rotten" about citizens forming associations for the purpose of pressuring politicians to vote for, or against, this or that policy.

This involves three rights specifically protected by the First Amendment:

Freedom of speech;
Freedom of association
Freedom to petition government.

Further, the Supreme Court has (rightly, in my view) held the freedom of association is "chilled" when a voluntary organization must disclose its membership. It was a tactic racists used against the NAACP in the '60s, and again by union bosses against the National Right to Work Committee in the '70s.

And yet, our Congress enacted a law (McCain-Feingold) that says if you want to run ads criticizing politicans within so many days of an election, you have to give up this part of your freedom.

As far as gerrymandering, there's nothing "filthy" or "rotten" about it. After all, it's based on an assumption -- that people can be relied on to vote, in the future, as they voted in the past. Nothing forces, or even assures, that outcome; and nothing prevents anyone from seeking to change that -- by influencing voters, identifying new voters, or simply moving into the district.

I'm not saying there aren't "filthy" and "rotten" things in our political system, but I would disagree that either of these fall in that category.

joeh said...

Getting money out of politics is like taking away air from the planet. Thinking that politicians in office will actually do anything fair to help their opponent get elected is like Pete Rose did not bet on baseball. Money is the lifeblood of politics, especially when we respond to political ads to get our information to vote. What the impact of money points out is that we have a lot of uneducated lazy voters who can be lead around very easily.
I suspect that this will have the same impact on the political show as the new study on steroids will have on baseball.
What I have said for a long time is that if you wake up in the morning and are dependent on government in your life, you had better take inventory and find a new life. If the government would do a lot less, we would all have better lives. I know of no government program that I can point to as a model of efficiency or worth. Our miltary has great power, but our government ties their hands and sends them to war to fight others with no restrictions. The last war that we were allowed to fight to win was WWII. I might give some praise to the national park program until you get under the belly and see the stupid waste.
I vote for all restrictions on money being eliminated so we can feed these poor fools we call our elected servants. Let them all grovel at the trough to get reelected and keep them away from making laws as much as possible.