Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

The_Counsel

(1,756 posts)

3. Brilliant!

Reply to guillaumeb (Original post)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 07:47 PM

Nov 2019

I think you may have stumbled upon the best argument I’ve ever seen for overturning “Citizens United.”

Money does not equal speech, because it is essentially bribery and therefore a crime.

Speech = speech. Nothing else.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I tried to rob a bank, but was caught. [View all] guillaumeb Nov 2019 OP

The federal bribery statute includes attempts. *Trying* to bribe someone is the crime of bribery, The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #1

Of course. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #2

This is actually kind of unique reasoning for that crowd. Collimator Nov 2019 #5

Trump's many crimes have esxposed the GOP. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #6

Brilliant! The_Counsel Nov 2019 #3

We agree on this, but the SCOTUS does not. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #4

"Everyone Knows Buying Politicians Is Bribery." The_Counsel Nov 2019 #7

No, but for a while in Illinois you could hand that officer the fine for the ticket Volaris Nov 2019 #8

But if money equates to speech, guillaumeb Nov 2019 #9

Not quite...not everything of value has a dollar amount attached to it... Volaris Nov 2019 #10

I agree. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #11

Oh, FOR SURE. Volaris Nov 2019 #13

I like your "he's too stupid" argument, and agree with it. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #18

I am not terribly worried that the Supremes will buy into this line of thought... TreasonousBastard Nov 2019 #12

Its this. Volaris Nov 2019 #14

Agreed. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #16

It varies. Igel Nov 2019 #15

I understand your argument, and agree in part. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #17