Does anyone know what this means??

[narayan]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well, Congress made a law. The Campaign Finance (so-called) Reform bill does just that. Regardless of your politics and feelings on the issue, Congress just did to the 1st Amendment what the 1st Amendment itself protects. Under the cover of night, in the wee hours of the morning 2 days ago, Congress amended the 1st Amendment.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...uth.guest.html

[Sohgin]

Server seems to be down. I can't read the article to know what you are talking about. However from what I know of campaign finance reform it is basically making it illegal for a congressperson to accept what amounts to little more than a bribe.

[narayan]

I just tried it and it works for me. Also, listen to the audio.

[cadetstimp]

Hmmm...tough trade off. I might do more good than harm since we're one of the few countries that allow lobbyists.

It's about time the individual was heard instead of the corporate dollar. Too many Senators working on commission.

[caddmannq]

What this means is that they (politicians) don't want campaign finance reform at all.

They want to fool the people into thinking that congress is really doing something about it, when in fact, they are passing a law that they know will be overturned as unconstitutional before a single big-money campaign dollar is ever lost.

It's all a two-faced shuffle, and another big waste of time and money, trying to fool the public.

And the sorry thing is that the public is being fooled. They hear "campaign reform" over and over on the news, until they think it is a reality, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Germ]

Congress passed a law doing no such thing.

The First Amendment has been expanded to mean much more than the Founding Fathers intended.

I'm sorry, but flag burning, political contributions, etc. are not free speech in accordance with the intended meaning of the amendment.

The men who wrote the Constitution left volumes explaining their intent and meaning. I wish people, including the courts, would take time to do a little reading.

Germ

[charmler]

The only people that statement applies to is congress. The Supreme Court, in all their intelligence, are the ones who interpret the Constitution. They are the folks responsible for the way the bill of rights is being slowly interpreted into a bill of privileges.

If this bill is signed into law and it is immediately implemented, there will only be extremely rich Republican candidates running against the Media's choice for the Democrats. Any organization that qualifies as an educational lobbyist will be able to lobby the congresspersons. The funny thing is, most of the educational lobbying groups are leftist organizations. The unions, the anti-gun crowd, the pro-abortion groups, the environmental terrorist groups, the socialist minded medical community will all have a free pass to advertise any lie they want and there is no chance that the media are going to offer equal time to the opposition to refute the claims from the left. The country will not survive a divisive ruling that puts the average person out of the political process.
I want the NRA to tell me who is Second Amendment friendly. I want the unions to talk up their candidate so I know to vote against them. This is how it has been and this is how it should be.