Everyone here is confused about the SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance

Apart from the issue of freedom of speech, there's another very basic constitutional way to oppose federal limitations on people spending money via corporations on political speech. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do that.

The most important way the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government is by enumerating those powers it has, and excluding from it all things that are not enumerated. This basic concept is one of the ones we talk about the most here, and it's his commitment to it that has earned Ron Paul the reputation as Dr. No that most of us admire so much.

For those who support federal limitations on our spending money on political speech via corporations, do you think that this is among the enumerated powers of the federal government? If so, where specifically in the Constitution have we delegated that authority to the government?
 
Last edited:
This wouldn´t even be an issue if politicians would follow the constitution --> corporations wouldn´t have much to lobby for.

But this is a HUGE problem until they start following the constitution and cut back goverment.

Yes, i think there is nothing in the constitution which gives federal goverment the power to regulate these things. But it only works when the federal goverment starts respect the constitution FULLY not PARTLY!

Your concerns are warranted and it is important to remind people that in order for politicians to sell something to a corporation it is not only necessary that the corps have the means to buy, but that the politicians have something to sell.

For the longest time they mostly followed the constitution and the only thing they could sell were protective tarrifs (a flaw in the constitution IMO.). Now they sell things they do not even have the constituional authority to sell, they sell things that are to remain with the people or their states, they sell things they steal.

Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right. The rule of law necessitates that the first amendment be upheld, even as other provisions are ignored.
 
My biggest concern, bigger than all of these, is people here are becoming too obsessed with the desire for political victories, to the point where they are willing to compromise their principles.

Quoted for truth.
 
I like your thinking here on the level of basic principles. I agree you're not necessarily coming from a leftist perspective to say something like this. But I don't think it's a workable idea. Hardly any legislation ever concerns a specific company by name. But they regulate things in certain specified ways that have certain intended effects on certain intended companies. But then if you broaden out the idea to say that every legislator has to recuse himself from voting on any legislation that has any effect on anyone he received campaign contributions from, then every legislator will have to recuse himself from voting on everything.

perfect case closed-- the separation of government and economy has been achieved here on Ron Paul forums.

Good work people. Thanks for coming out!
 
Great OP with razor sharp thinking. I look forward to exploring the links you provided.

My only concern is that it is not necessarily the rank and file laborers in the corporation that choose to pool their capital for political advertising. It may be the upper management/board of directors who have a revolving door with the Federal government and the Courts. But I think you expressed your concern about this also and I agree that to try to regulate campaign spending does nothing to address this evil alliance.
 
For those who support federal limitations on our spending money on political speech via corporations, do you think that this is among the enumerated powers of the federal government? If so, where specifically in the Constitution have we delegated that authority to the government?

Again, if the onus was on the politician to recuse himself from dealing in legislation with a perceived conflict of interest then the limitation would be placed on government not business.

This would force the american people to realize that it is not business that is corrupt-- once the politicians rip off the american people and pool the stolen wealth in Washington corporations would be bloody idiotic not to donate money in expectation of favored status, subsidies and contracts.

The crime is in the acceptance of corporate money in exchange for the above.

Such a policy would outlaw this:

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Campaign Contributions
Name Office Party/State Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
 
This is like saying marriage is created by government.

It is :rolleyes:. Don't convert a natural religious right to a privilege and then bitch about government regulating your exercise of the privilege in divorce court. You can only lead a horse to water. Another excerpt from my state statues:


741.01 County court judge or clerk of the circuit court to issue marriage license; fee.--

(1) Every marriage license shall be issued by a county court judge or clerk of the circuit court under his or her hand and seal. The county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall issue such license, upon application for the license, if there appears to be no impediment to the marriage. The county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall collect and receive a fee of $2 for receiving the application for the issuance of a marriage license.

And another excerpt:

741.04 Marriage license issued.--

(1) No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall issue a license for the marriage of any person unless there shall be first presented and filed with him or her an affidavit in writing, signed by both parties to the marriage, providing the social security numbers or any other available identification numbers of each party, made and subscribed before some person authorized by law to administer an oath, reciting the true and correct ages of such parties; unless both such parties shall be over the age of 18 years, except as provided in s. 741.0405; and unless one party is a male and the other party is a female. Pursuant to the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each party is required to provide his or her social security number in accordance with this section. The state has a compelling interest in promoting not only marriage but also responsible parenting, which may include the payment of child support. Any person who has been issued a social security number shall provide that number. Disclosure of social security numbers or other identification numbers obtained through this requirement shall be limited to the purpose of administration of the Title IV-D program for child support enforcement. Any person who is not a citizen of the United States may provide either a social security number or an alien registration number if one has been issued by the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who has not been issued a social security number or an alien registration number is encouraged to provide another form of identification. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to mean that a county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall not issue a marriage license to individuals who are not citizens of the United States if one or both of the parties are unable to provide a social security number, alien registration number, or other identification number.

(2) No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall issue a license for the marriage of any person unless there shall be first presented and filed with him or her:

(a) A statement in writing, signed by both parties, which specifies whether the parties, separately or together, have completed a premarital preparation course.

(b) A statement that verifies that both parties have obtained and read or otherwise accessed the information contained in the handbook or other electronic media presentation of the rights and responsibilities of parties to a marriage specified in s. 741.0306.

(3) If a couple has not submitted to the clerk valid certificates of completion of a premarital preparation course, the effective date of the marriage license shall be delayed 3 days from the date of application. The effective date shall be printed on the marriage license in bold print. If a couple has submitted valid certificates of completion of a premarital preparation course, the effective date of the marriage license shall not be delayed. Exceptions to the delayed effective date must be granted to non-Florida residents seeking a marriage license from the state and for individuals asserting hardship. Marriage license fee waivers shall continue to be available to all eligible individuals. For state residents, a county court judge issuing a marriage license may waive the delayed effective date for good cause.

And another excerpt:

741.08 Marriage not to be solemnized without a license.--Before any of the persons named in s. 741.07 shall solemnize any marriage, he or she shall require of the parties a marriage license issued according to the requirements of s. 741.01, and within 10 days after solemnizing the marriage he or she shall make a certificate thereof on the license, and shall transmit the same to the office of the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court from which it issued.

And another excerpt:

741.07 Persons authorized to solemnize matrimony.--

(1) All regularly ordained ministers of the gospel or elders in communion with some church, or other ordained clergy, and all judicial officers, including retired judicial officers, clerks of the circuit courts, and notaries public of this state may solemnize the rights of matrimonial contract, under the regulations prescribed by law. Nothing in this section shall make invalid a marriage which was solemnized by any member of the clergy, or as otherwise provided by law prior to July 1, 1978.

(2) Any marriage which may be had and solemnized among the people called "Quakers," or "Friends," in the manner and form used or practiced in their societies, according to their rites and ceremonies, shall be good and valid in law; and wherever the words "minister" and "elder" are used in this chapter, they shall be held to include all of the persons connected with the Society of Friends, or Quakers, who perform or have charge of the marriage ceremony according to their rites and ceremonies.

And another excerpt:

741.211 Common-law marriages void.--No common-law marriage entered into after January 1, 1968, shall be valid, except that nothing contained in this section shall affect any marriage which, though otherwise defective, was entered into by the party asserting such marriage in good faith and in substantial compliance with this chapter.

And another excerpt:

(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union.

And for those people who actually thought underage sex was completely illegal. Underage marriage is provided for in law as well....

741.0405 When marriage license may be issued to persons under 18 years.--

(1) If either of the parties shall be under the age of 18 years but at least 16 years of age, the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall issue a license for the marriage of such party only if there is first presented and filed with him or her the written consent of the parents or guardian of such minor to such marriage, acknowledged before some officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments and administer oaths. However, the license shall be issued without parental consent when both parents of such minor are deceased at the time of making application or when such minor has been married previously.

(2) The county court judge of any county in the state may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, issue a license to marry to any male or female under the age of 18 years, upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the parents of a child.

(3) When the fact of pregnancy is verified by the written statement of a licensed physician, the county court judge of any county in the state may, in his or her discretion, issue a license to marry:

(a) To any male or female under the age of 18 years upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the expectant parents of a child; or

(b) To any female under the age of 18 years and male over the age of 18 years upon the female's application sworn under oath that she is an expectant parent.

(4) No license to marry shall be granted to any person under the age of 16 years, with or without the consent of the parents, except as provided in subsections (2) and (3).
 
Back
Top