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

Latest Breaking News

wial

(437 posts)

5. I'm confused though

Reply to Hissyspit (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2012, 10:31 PM

Mar 2012

I'm all for Siegelman getting justice at long last, but I thought progressives didn't like the idea money is speech? How is money protected under the first amendment? Maybe under current corrupted law, and maybe that helps in the short run, but should we be celebrating?

In other news, please check out Move to Amend and the continuing effort to fix the US Constitution so this never ever happens again.

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):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ex-Attorneys General Back Siegelman (More Than 100 Sign Friend of Court Brief) [View all] Hissyspit Mar 2012 OP

WOW! Rec'd! Progress! And I love you, Hissyspit!! nt babylonsister Mar 2012 #1

Hot damn. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2012 #2

((( Great news! ))) Auntie Bush Mar 2012 #3

I hope something good comes from this. asjr Mar 2012 #4

I'm confused though wial Mar 2012 #5

I Agree I 2 am Confused MACARD Mar 2012 #9

You are confused because you don't know all the facts. pnwmom Mar 2012 #12

Exactly, dotymed Mar 2012 #14

No, it was a fund to promote a statewide referendum on a state lottery. trof Mar 2012 #15

So what? You're splitting hairs. The money was intended to help education, pnwmom Mar 2012 #23

no kidding! mimitabby Mar 2012 #22

This isn't a double standard. The fact is pnwmom Mar 2012 #11

"Should that really be a crime?" Maybe. cstanleytech Mar 2012 #13

Transparency in campaign donations would solve that problem. n/t pnwmom Mar 2012 #24

Fantastic news! coffeenap Mar 2012 #6

K&R. nt OnyxCollie Mar 2012 #7

He has been waiting so damned long for justice. Surely hope this will help. n/t Judi Lynn Mar 2012 #8

But..but...he is a Democrat. The SCOTUS only protects the rights McCamy Taylor Mar 2012 #10

Has Ted Stevens weighted in yet? DOJ gave Stevens a get-out-of-jail card, but L. Coyote Mar 2012 #16

+1 avaistheone1 Mar 2012 #17

THAT is the part that twists the knife in my back. bvar22 Mar 2012 #18

Exactly. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #20

It's all about realpolitik. Siegelman is less wrong than nearly all, but still wrong saras Mar 2012 #19

Why was he wrong? He merely reappointed someone who had been appointed by pnwmom Mar 2012 #25

My point was that he was no wronger than anyone else playing that game, and probably less saras Mar 2012 #26

He shouldn't be in prison now simply for being part of the system, pnwmom Mar 2012 #27

Thank you MR. Doyle for signing this friend of the court brief for Mr. Siegelman.... midnight Mar 2012 #21