Political Campaign Money: Correcting The Liberal Lie

Liberals love to spread the lie that Big Business is buying elections for Republicans. Liberals love to spread the lie that the Koch brothers are buying elections for Republicans, suggesting Democrats don’t stand a chance, what with all that “evil Right-Wing” money pouring in. But the lie is easily fixed by taking a quick trip over to Open Secrets and looking at the top 140 donors list.

I broke down that list into 10 different mutually exclusive subsets (with some on the list not falling into any of the 10 subsets), based on the percentage of money given.

90 percent or more to Democrats — 21, with the top 2 and 4 of the top 10 ranked donors
80 to 89 percent to Democrats — 12, with 3 of the top 10 and 5 of the top 12 ranked donors
70 to 79 percent to Democrats — 6, the top donor ranked 5th
60 to 69 percent to Democrats — 5, the top donor ranked 25th
50 to 59 percent to Democrats — 15

90 percent or more to Republicans — 3, the top donor ranked 70th
80 to 89 percent to Republicans — 6, the top donor ranked 30th
70 to 79 percent to Republicans — 10, the top donor ranked 23rd
60 to 69 percent to Republicans — 26, the top donor ranked 17th
50 to 59 percent to Republicans — 34

Where do those “evil” Koch brothers — who are Libertarian and not Conservative — fit in? Koch Industries is ranked 82nd, with 88 percent to Republicans and 11 percent to Democrats.

Once again, the easily-found facts defeat the Liberal lie, which is why Liberals need people to be ignorant of the facts in order for Liberals to win elections.
________
Cross-Post

26 Comments

  1. How about all the under the table contributions to the Repub party by the likes of the Koch Brothers which your table does not include, therefore does not tell the whole story. Here is just the tip of the iceberg:

    “WASHINGTON — After admitting in June to making illegal campaign contributions, INVISTA, a foreign subsidiary of Koch Industries, finally paid the small $4,700 fine it owed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) this week.

    The case relates to $26,800 in campaign contributions the company made to candidates, political committees, and political party committees from 2005 to 2009. The recipients of the contributions have since paid back the contributions except for the Democratic Governor’s Association, which received a $15,000 contribution in 2007.”

    And yes, both parties are guilty, which is a major flaw in the integrity of our government, an American disgrace!

  2. Where do those “evil” Koch brothers — who are Libertarian and not Conservative — fit in? Koch Industries is ranked 82nd, with 88 percent to Republicans and 11 percent to Democrats.

    What the Puffing Buffoon jh is leaving out is money funnelled through third parties and spent “independently” of political campaigns. I.e. most of it.

  3. A little history lesson is in order re Campaign Finance. From Wiki:

    Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s

    In 1986, several bills were killed in the U.S. Senate by bipartisan maneuvers which did not allow the bills to come up for a vote. The bill would impose strict controls for campaign fund raising. Later in 1988, legislative and legal setbacks on proposals designed to limiting overall campaign spending by candidates were shelved after a Republican filibuster. In addition, a constitutional amendment to override a Supreme Court decision failed to get off the ground. In 1994, Senate Democrats had more bills blocked by Republicans including a bill setting spending limits and authorizing partial public financing of congressional elections. In 1996, bipartisan legislation for voluntary spending limits which rewards those who bare soft money is killed by a Republican filibuster.

    In 1997, Senators McCain and Feingold sought to eliminate soft money and TV advertising expenditures but the legislation was defeated by a Republican filibuster. Several different proposals were made in 1999 by both parties. The Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 1867) proposed by Asa Hutchinson (R – Arkansas) put a bans on soft money and raised hard money limits. The Citizen Legislature & Political ACT (H.R. 1922) sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle (R – CA) would repeal all federal freedom ACT election contribution limits and expedite and expand disclosure. H.R. 417 Campaign Reform Act Shays-Meehan Bill, sponsored by Christopher Shays (R – CT) and Martin Meehan (D – MA). Would ban soft money and limit types of campaign advertising.”

    Notice which party used the filibuster frequently to block reform in campaign contributions.

    Then last year, well in advance of the 2012 general election cycle, we got the Citizen’s United decision from the SCOTUS, which in effect granted personhood to corporations and unions, a decision which opens the gates to huge sums of money which can be used in political campaigns, a further corruption of our election system, in my view.

    Here is part of the dissent by Justice Stevens:

    “Justice Stevens, J. wrote, in partial dissent:

    The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

    In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

    Justice Stevens also wrote: “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.”"

    I agree with Justice Stevens’ dissent, and worry greatly how this SCOTUS ruling will influence our voting in November 2012, in effect diluting the voices of individual people by voices of entities which are not in fact individual people, therefore not entitled to the same free speech rights.

  4. Then last year, well in advance of the 2012 general election cycle, we got the Citizen’s United decision from the SCOTUS, which in effect granted personhood to corporations and unions

    You’ve been corrected on this time and time again, but as usual you just keep posting the same lies over and over and over.

    Here’s the real SCOTUS precedent for corporate personhood.

    And you continue to wonder why people treat you with continued contempt, Perry? This is a perfect example.

  5. I agree with Justice Stevens’ dissent, and worry greatly how this SCOTUS ruling will influence our voting in November 2012, in effect diluting the voices of individual people by voices of entities which are not in fact individual people, therefore not entitled to the same free speech rights.

    Terrific. So here’s what you do: Lobby your reps and senators to sponsor a constitutional amendment that limits campaign cash to individuals, not corporations or unions. Or, is that too “by the book” for you? Or do you prefer to act like idiots Gov. Perdue of North Carolina and Jesse Jackson Jr. who desire extra-constitutional methods to get what they want?

  6. Then last year, well in advance of the 2012 general election cycle, we got the Citizen’s United decision from the SCOTUS, which in effect granted personhood to corporations and unions

    You’ve been corrected on this time and time again, but as usual you just keep posting the same lies over and over and over.

    Here’s the real SCOTUS precedent for corporate personhood.

    No, Hube, this is a perfect example of your obnoxious arrogance.

    Personhood is applicable to the cite you gave wrt the 14th Amendment, but it is also applicable to the Citizens United decision which renders to a corporation or to a union the attribute of personhood wrt the First Amendment. The latter has been used by many ever since the decision.

    Moreover, Hube, what gives you the right to speak for any other than yourself on here. Did you canvass the commenters on here wrt to the views of each? Of course not, nevertheless, you assign yourself as a spokesman for others, another symptom of your arrogance! No, you just had to throw your ad hom in there too, so I figure you deserve a couple back at you. What a loser!

  7. Perry plays the same sad song:

    I agree with Justice Stevens’ dissent, and worry greatly how this SCOTUS ruling will influence our voting in November 2012, in effect diluting the voices of individual people by voices of entities which are not in fact individual people, therefore not entitled to the same free speech rights.

    [sigh!] Just how many times do you have to be reminded that the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about the freedom of speech or the press being restricted to people or persons? The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from passing any laws which restrict the freedom of speech or the press, period.

    To think that the First Amendment somehow applies only to individuals is simply nonsense: it protects the freedom of the press, very specifically, and newspapers, even in 1787, were not always sole proprietorships. And if you believe that the freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment should apply only to individuals, wouldn’t that mean that you also believe that the federal government can go in and shut down The Philadelphia Inquirer or Fox News Channel just because they are corporations, and the government might not like what they say.

    Oh, wait, I forgot: you probably would like to see the government have the power to shut down Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

    Why on God’s earth would you ever want to give the government the authority to shut down speech, Perry?

    You’re a veteran, Perry, and that means that, once upon a time, you took this oath:

    I, Perry ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

    You swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and while the parts about obeying the President and the officers appointed over you no longer apply, given that you are now a civilian, the first parts still do, or at least still should. If you believe that the Constitution is somehow imperfect, or needs to be modernized, then you should push for a Constitutional amendment to change it. But, when I wrote specifically proposing such, here and here, your response wasn’t that parts needed to be changed, the proper way, but that we just can’t read the words of the Constitution absolutely, to mean what they actually say, and also said “it is my stated belief that the First Amendment cannot be characterized as an absolute statement, due to obvious contextual differences through time, I do think it reasonable to set limits on campaign financing and on the duration of campaigns.”

    Every time we discuss this, you advocate not defending the Constitution, but interpreting it away, trying to make it simply meaningless.

    Perhaps you’ll recall, from another recent article, that Associate Justice Antonin Scalia noted that “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it. Literally, it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account.” When the words of a constitution, or of a law, are really meaningless, as you would have the words of our Constitution to be, then you find liberty and freedom to be meaningless.

    It is because we have a government structure with separation of powers, and a Supreme Court which (finally) has gotten back around to understanding that the Constitution actually means what it says that your freedoms are guaranteed.

  8. [sigh!] Just how many times do you have to be reminded that the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about the freedom of speech or the press being restricted to people or persons? The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from passing any laws which restrict the freedom of speech or the press, period.

    Dana thinks that laws against yappy dogs or mandating automobile mufflers are unconstitutional – after all, dogs and cars have a right to speak in his world…

    I’m interested, Dana – the Constitution starts off as:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Can you tell us where exactly a dog, a car or a corporation signed the document?

  9. Hey, Socialist New Zealand book putter backer, do take some “reading for comprehension” classes. And quit applying known false premises in your arguments (those are called lies of commission). After you’ve accomplished that, explain where in the First Amendment there is any claim that Free Speech is tied to personhood. The fact of the matter is you can’t, because it isn’t there.

    But you’re not here to be honest in the first place. You lie about practically every one and every thing.

  10. After you’ve accomplished that, explain where in the First Amendment there is any claim that Free Speech is tied to personhood.

    So you also think that dogs and cars have free speech rights then?

    What a bunch of intellectually oncoherent blowhards.

  11. Phoe, just what part of “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,” do you find so confusing? You can raise all sorts of absurd objections, and even claim that the Framers would really have meant that the freedom of speech applied solely to individuals, but what they might have meant is irrelevant; what they wrote and put into our Constitution is, and ought to be, the law under which we operate.

    If reasonable people believe that the freedom of speech ought to apply only to individuals, then they ought to propose a constitutional amendment to specify that, but, oddly enough, no one ever does.

  12. Phoe, just what part of “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,” do you find so confusing? You can raise all sorts of absurd objections,

    Dana, YOU ARE THE ONE RAISING ALL KINDS OF ABSURD OBJECTIONS

    Rights only apply to people, Dana. This is inherent in teh concept – remember, the legal argument is over whether corporations are “people”. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS COME UP WITH THIS STUP!D IDEA THAT IF IT DOESN’T EXPLICITLY SAY “PEOPLE” IN THE AMENDMENT IT APPLIES TO NON-PEOPLE.

    Your idea. No-one elses. The legal argument is something different.

    You are stating “Okay, even if corporations are not people, the Amendment doesn’t EXPLICITLY say “people”, therefore non-people have free speech rights too.”

    I am pointing out that uder your logic, this applies to dogs and cars.

    Yes, it is absurd. THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY YOUR OWN LOGIC REFLECTED BACK AT YOU, and your logic was absurd to begin with.

    Do you get it yet?

  13. You can raise all sorts of absurd objections, and even claim that the Framers would really have meant that the freedom of speech applied solely to individuals, but what they might have meant is irrelevant; what they wrote and put into our Constitution is, and ought to be, the law under which we operate.

    According to your construction of the Amendment, Dana, is a law preventing dogs from exercising free speech constitutional or not?

    Oh, sure, you can claim that the Framers would really have meant that the freedom of speech applied solely to humans, but what they might have meant is irrelevant; what they wrote and put into our Constitution is, and ought to be, the law under which we operate. Your entire argument is that the Amendment doesn’t say that free speech is restricted to “people”, therefore on what basis do you claim it doesn’t apply to dogs?

    Now, you can splutter about “absurdity” all you like – but that’s just an application of your own reasoning.

  14. The Phoenician wrote:

    Phoe, just what part of “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,” do you find so confusing? You can raise all sorts of absurd objections,

    Dana, YOU ARE THE ONE RAISING ALL KINDS OF ABSURD OBJECTIONS

    Rights only apply to people, Dana. This is inherent in teh concept – remember, the legal argument is over whether corporations are “people”. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS COME UP WITH THIS STUP!D IDEA THAT IF IT DOESN’T EXPLICITLY SAY “PEOPLE” IN THE AMENDMENT IT APPLIES TO NON-PEOPLE.

    Your idea. No-one elses. The legal argument is something different.

    You are stating “Okay, even if corporations are not people, the Amendment doesn’t EXPLICITLY say “people”, therefore non-people have free speech rights too.”

    I am pointing out that uder your logic, this applies to dogs and cars.

    Yes, it is absurd. THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY YOUR OWN LOGIC REFLECTED BACK AT YOU, and your logic was absurd to begin with.

    Do you get it yet?

    What I get is that you simply cannot read! The First Amendment does not limit the ability of Congress to pass laws on certain rights for people, it limits the authority of Congress to pass laws on certain subjects. Congress has no authority to pass any laws which restrict the freedom of speech, period, regardless of whose speech we’re talking about.

    You really aren’t very smart, are you?

  15. Congress has no authority to pass any laws which restrict the freedom of speech, period, regardless of whose speech we’re talking about.

    Once again, Dana, according to your construction of the Amendment, Dana, is a law preventing dogs from exercising free speech constitutional or not?

    Everyone can see you evade this question. You’re really not very smart, are you?

  16. Typical Leftist Alinskyite tactic, attempt to force the opponent into defending a position the opponent never broached.

    Alinsky heaped praise on Lucifer (that would be SATAN) in support of his rebellious and society-destroying cause. And Alinskyites are all doing the work of their leader, Satan, whether knowingly or no. It is what it is.

  17. Dana, you have permitted yourself to be the victim of the absolutism of your church, having been indoctrinated with it when you were very young. There comes a time later in life when you supposedly become capable to use knowledge and logic to address this indoctrination. Unfortunately, I do not think you have yet reached this point in this case.

    Take the commandment: Thou shall not kill. Some would insist that the translation says: Thou shall not murder. Whichever is true, we do not construct an absolutist interpretation to this commandment, because there can be obvious extenuating circumstances involved in the act of killing/murdering. For example: Self defense. Another example: Passion, like finding someone in bed with your wife. The same analogy holds for the meaning of the First Amendment, that it is understood that speech refers to a person, therefore cannot be extended to a corporation or a union or any other such entity. The point is that although an explicit phrase may not have been written, we can still conclude an interpretation of the meaning as to include that explicit phrase as being implied, according to the cultural context of the actual words as written AND as interpreted later. There indeed is no absolute here, or anywhere.

    In an election, each individual person is entitled to cast a vote. A corporation is not so entitled, because a corporation is not an individual person. McCain-Feingold made the same distinction by prohibiting corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” during the last month before election day. Moreover, the practical point is that corporations and unions are in a position where, if they so chose, could literally drown out the voices of individual persons in the climactic last month of campaigning. Thus, assigning personhood to corporations and unions so they fit into the intent of the First Amendment makes no logical sense at all, nor practical sense either.

    Whatever happened to common sense, that for political purposes the SCOTUS decided to stretch the First Amendment into making Corporations and Unions into individual persons? This was a horrible decision!

  18. Whatever happened to common sense, that for political purposes the SCOTUS decided to stretch the First Amendment into making Corporations and Unions into individual persons? This was a horrible decision!

    Once again, since you are completely incapable of reading for comprehension, there is nothing in the First Amendment that ties Freedom of Speech to personhood. There is nothing at all in the absolute restriction in the First Amendment that ties Freedom of Speech to personhood. Personhood is not a qualifying factor in the absolute restriction on government regarding Freedom of Speech, according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Arguments related to determining personhood are non-sequiturs because the First Amendment to the US Constitution has nothing in it that ties personhood to Freedom of Speech.

  19. Typical Leftist Alinskyite tactic, attempt to force the opponent into defending a position the opponent never broached.

    “Congress has no authority to pass any laws which restrict the freedom of speech, period, regardless of whose speech we’re talking about.”

    Perhaps Because, jh, you’re such a l1ar, you didn’t notice it?

  20. The Phoenician once again demonstrates his stupidity:

    Congress has no authority to pass any laws which restrict the freedom of speech, period, regardless of whose speech we’re talking about.

    Once again, Dana, according to your construction of the Amendment, Dana, is a law preventing dogs from exercising free speech constitutional or not?

    Everyone can see you evade this question. You’re really not very smart, are you?

    There’s no need to address a ridiculous question. You raise an absurdity, and treat it as serious.

    But, since you are so stupid as to think it’s serious, I’ll point out what ought to be obvious: Congress does not legislate on dogs barking. Such things would fall under local jurisdictions, as anyone with half a brain — and you fall short of that mark, by a considerable amount — would know.

    Of course, in the interest of free speech, I do let dogs bark . . . which is why you can still comment here.

    Fortunately for you, CSPT does not have a minimum intelligence level requirement to comment here; if we did, you’d be banned.

  21. Perry at least tries to make a logical argument, which is more than can be said about the Phoenician:

    Dana, you have permitted yourself to be the victim of the absolutism of your church, having been indoctrinated with it when you were very young. There comes a time later in life when you supposedly become capable to use knowledge and logic to address this indoctrination. Unfortunately, I do not think you have yet reached this point in this case.

    Well, Perry, I happen to believe that the law must mean what it says; if it does not, if the law means what someone wants it to mean, rather than what was actually passed by the legislature, we have a government not of laws, but of men. How can anyone be held responsible for obeying the laws if the laws don’t mean what they say?

    Take the commandment: Thou shall not kill. Some would insist that the translation says: Thou shall not murder. Whichever is true, we do not construct an absolutist interpretation to this commandment, because there can be obvious extenuating circumstances involved in the act of killing/murdering. For example: Self defense. Another example: Passion, like finding someone in bed with your wife. The same analogy holds for the meaning of the First Amendment, that it is understood that speech refers to a person, therefore cannot be extended to a corporation or a union or any other such entity. The point is that although an explicit phrase may not have been written, we can still conclude an interpretation of the meaning as to include that explicit phrase as being implied, according to the cultural context of the actual words as written AND as interpreted later. There indeed is no absolute here, or anywhere.

    Perry, you are still trying to add something that is not there. The First Amendment restricts Congress from legislating in particular fields, period.

    But, let’s look at it your way. Citizens United was a non-profit corporation which produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton, which they wished to show within thirty days of a primary election in which Senatrix Clinton was running; that would have been in violation of the McCain-Feingold Restriction on Speech Act. In the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), the Supreme Court held that films were an artistic medium covered by First Amendment protections; this reversed the previous decision of Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio 236 U.S. 230 (1915), which held that films were just a business, and not covered by freedom of speech and of the press.

    Associate Justice Tom Clark, delivering the Opinion of the Court in Burstyn v Wilson:

    It is urged that motion pictures do not fall within the First Amendment’s aegis because their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit. We cannot agree. That books, newspapers, and magazines are published and sold for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment. We fail to see why operation for profit should have any different effect in the case of motion pictures.

    It is further urged that motion pictures possess a greater capacity for evil, particularly among the youth of a community, than other modes of expression. Even if one were to accept this hypothesis, it does not follow that motion pictures should be disqualified from First Amendment protection. If there be capacity for evil it may be relevant in determining the permissible scope of community control, but it does not authorize substantially unbridled censorship such as we have here.

    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. To the extent that language in the opinion in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, supra, is out of harmony with the views here set forth, we no longer adhere to it.

    When Citizens United produced Hillary; The Movie, they were producing a film, something already defined by the Court as being included under First Amendment protection for over half a century. Films, of course, are only rarely the works of individuals; they are almost always the product of a group of people, and those groups are almost always corporations.

    What the McCain-Feingold Restriction on Speech Act did was to prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An “electioneering communication” was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

    We can argue about whether the First Congress really meant any speech, and whether they would have made exceptions for pornography had they been aware of photography and the internet, but one thing is very certain: if there is any particular speech that the First Congress had in mind when it considered what became the First Amendment, it was political speech, the right of the people to criticize candidates or officeholders or the government. Indeed, they specifically mentioned the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Citizens United’s movie most certainly falls under the category of political speech, which McCain-Feingold tried to restrict.

    The First Amendment, by its very language, putting together the freedom of speech and of the press almost as one, without commas or breaks, recognizes that groups of people, organizing themselves as the press — even in 1787, not all newspapers were sole proprietorships, but were companies — and recognized that printed words merited just as much protection as the spoken. Literally everything about the Citizens United film fell under both the broad definitions given in the First Amendment and previous Supreme Court decisions stating that films were included under First Amendment protections. Your belief that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and of the press only to individuals was inaccurate under the law long before the Citizens United case. Even if I concede (which I do only for the sake of debate) your statement, “The point is that although an explicit phrase may not have been written, we can still conclude an interpretation of the meaning as to include that explicit phrase as being implied, according to the cultural context of the actual words as written AND as interpreted later,” the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision would be the correct one, given that “the actual words as written AND as interpreted later” is covered under the Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson case.

  22. Alright, Dana. After you have completly smacked the shit out of the two peas, how about we go out again? Some of the “boys” (that means all us guys that can ) should go for an evening of political thought.. Hube?..Perry? I wouldn’t mind meeting in Delaware. Or (say it ain’t so ) Jim Thorp! Waddaya think? Let’s get our shit together, time is short. I would like for Dana to pick a restaurant. I’ll sponsor the whole thing. Common’ guys, once before Christmas! Now, crazy at it sounds, bring your wives! Or if not, then don’t ( if it’s cool, I’llhave June next to me ). I have to say I’d love to meet the warrior women. I’m a warrior (so is June ) and I’d love to be among my friends!

  23. BTW, the next time we meet I will bring my Purple Hearts, my Bronze Star, and the commie flag I killed the M-F for( thanks to a seargent) . That way, an idiot like Pho will not be able to call me “coward” again. “drunk” perhaps, “coward” I don’t tnink so.

  24. Sounds like a plan! But if it’s in the First State, it would have to be Perry or Hube who picked the restaurant, because they actually know where the decent places are.

  25. But, since you are so stupid as to think it’s serious, I’ll point out what ought to be obvious: Congress does not legislate on dogs barking. Such things would fall under local jurisdictions, as anyone with half a brain — and you fall short of that mark, by a considerable amount — would know.

    Uh-huh:

    The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

    Not very smart, are you?

    There’s no need to address a ridiculous question. You raise an absurdity, and treat it as serious.

    Wrong. I raise an absurdity to demonstrate that your own position is just as absurd.

    You stated : Congress has no authority to pass any laws which restrict the freedom of speech, period, regardless of whose speech we’re talking about.

    Once again, Dana, according to your construction of the Amendment, Dana, is a law preventing dogs from exercising free speech constitutional or not?

    Everyone can see you evade this question.

Comments are closed.