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
In reply to the discussion: Should the First Amendment be modified so that speech influencing elections can be regulated? [View all]Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
Should the First Amendment be modified so that speech influencing elections can be regulated? [View all]
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
OP
that's a very broad exception--congress could criminalize criticizing their favorite candidates
fishwax
Jan 2014
#1
In the US today, it is almost impossible to get your message out without spending money.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#8
The wording in the OP would eliminate protections against criticizing candidates in private
fishwax
Jan 2014
#13
Perhaps the word "public" could be inserted immediately before the word "speech"
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#14
but that would still remove protections against going to a park with a bullhorn
fishwax
Jan 2014
#18
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect political speech I thought? Am I missing
el_bryanto
Jan 2014
#5
An amendment stating that "money isn't speech" would be devastating to the First Amendment.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#7
A little OT, but I feel strongly that the UK should have a written constitution. Do you agree?
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#25
And the UK Government (for example) has the power to do all of that stuff already,
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#20
If you don't want Congress (or a state government) to exercise the power, don't give it to them.
onenote
Jan 2014
#55
The solution to an overexpansive reading of the First Amendment by the SCOTUS
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#27
"Money is not speech" would be a breathtaking circumscription of the First Amendment.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#31
So you think that it should be constitutional to ban books that mention election candidates
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#34
The problem is money and the capture of the media, not anything in the Bill of Rights. nt
bemildred
Jan 2014
#33
"Money is not speech" would be a breathtaking dismemberment of the First Amendment.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#41
Should Congress be allowed to ban expenditure on speech to whatever extent they like?
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#44
With the current First Amendment, Congress does not have the power to do that.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#48
Congress can and does get amendments passed, this one should be quite popular.
bemildred
Jan 2014
#49
You do realize that Congress cannot, by itself, pass constitutional amendments? (nt)
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#51
You realize you're throwing the union baby out with the Citizens United bath water.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#57
Not the union baby, the union-money baby, unions will have more power than ever.
bemildred
Jan 2014
#68
Are you advocating for corporations to be allowed to spend unlimited money on elections?
Ohio Joe
Jan 2014
#40
I agree with the current ban on corporate campaign contributions in Federal elections.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#43
The ACLU supports what is in the constitution... That does not make it best for our country
Ohio Joe
Jan 2014
#50
"...if restrictions are reasonable as to time and place (i.e. X months before an election)..."
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#58
The 1A isn't designed to sell soap bubbles, it's meant to allow people to challenge the gov't
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#63
Laws aren't made by experts; they're made by politicians and by that I mean
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2014
#77
Your problem is that it only takes a court decision that takes exception to banning books.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#70
Some speech may be construed as harassment and/or threats. So I can argue this either way.
KittyWampus
Jan 2014
#73