Who will stand up for the First Amendment?

The lede editorial in today’s newspaper rightfully thumps Democrat Rep. Jacky Rosen, who recently announced she will seek Sen. Dean Heller’s seat next year, for embracing the First Amendment-shredding effort to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that said corporations and unions have free speech rights.

The editorial noted that this week Rosen was endorsed by the End Citizens United group and she responded by saying, “I’m grateful to End Citizens United for their support, and I will be their partner in the fight against mega-donors flooding our elections with unlimited and unaccountable dark money.”

The Citizens United ruling overturned a portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law under which the Federal Election Commission barred the airing of a movie produced by Citizens United that was critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary.

In the press release announcing its endorsement, End Citizens United’s President Tiffany Muller declared, “Nevada will be a top priority for ECU this cycle and we look forward to working closely with Rosen’s campaign and help her fight back against the special interests who will do and say anything to protect their handpicked candidate.”

Rosen was further quoted as saying, “Washington hasn’t been listening to the needs of Nevadans because billionaires and special interests are drowning out the voices of real people in our communities. If we’re going to make real progress on issues like climate change, gun violence and health care, then we need to bring some transparency and accountability to our broken campaign finance system. Unlike Senator Heller, I will stand up for Nevadans by speaking out for real reform and a reversal of this catastrophic Supreme Court decision.”

That press release also said Heller voted three times against the DISCLOSE Act, Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections. That bill was pushed strongly by Sen. Harry Reid, whois backing Rosen’s run against Heller.

Actually, in the final vote killing that bill, Heller was absent. Though he was campaigning, his spokesman said he would have voted against it.

But in an interview on Sam Shad’s “Nevada Newsmakers” in 2016 Heller called for ending of corporate and union campaign donations in federal elections, though he did not call directly for overturning Citizens United.

“I would be for eliminating both,” Heller was quoted as saying. “Lets just make it fair and let’s get it back to the grass roots, get back to letting rank and file Americans, let them participate in this process. It (money) has completely overwhelmed the process. I think we should restrict both corporations and unions and let’s get it back to the grass roots.”

How you do that without amending the Constitution and ripping apart the First Amendment was not explained.

Rep. Dina Titus, who also has indicted she might run for Heller’s seat in the Senate, also has expressed support for End Citizens united.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained this in his majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: “As a ‘restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,’ that statute ‘necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.’ … Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. (Government could repress speech by ‘attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas,’ for ‘effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others’).”

Reid in one of his many diatribes on the subject said: “But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced. Let’s keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons. It is time that we revive our constituents’ faith in the electoral system, and let them know that their voices are being heard.”

This implies the voters are too stupid to hear an open and free-wheeling debate and not be influenced by the volume or frequency of the message.

Who will stand up for the First Amendment?

Jacky Rosen (R-J pix)

 

Advertisements

42 comments on “Who will stand up for the First Amendment?

  1. deleted says:

    In response to headline, it apparently won’t be conservative hero Jeff Sessions.

    And I’m wondering Thomas given your reading of the First Amendment, how there could be a penalty for disclosing classified information at all?

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/05/sessions-leaks-media-attack-worse-thank-you-think-215465

  2. There is difference between telling the the citizens, via the media, what is going on and spying for another country. The old claim about jeopardizing national defense is too often tossed out to cover up the real problem: The information is embarrassing to whoever is in power.

  3. Rincon says:

    “How you do that without amending the Constitution and ripping apart the First Amendment was not explained.”

    At least for corporations, restricting their contributions would not violate the First Amendment. Every individual involved in any corporation can contribute to their heart’s content. Limiting corporations’ contributions only prevents them from commandeering the money of their shareholders without permission. I would support unlimited contributions from corporations if their shareholders gave express permission for each contribution.

  4. Freedom of assembly?

  5. Steve says:

    Lets correct that bit of Rincon inspired drivel.
    It reads much better this way;
    I would support unlimited contributions from unions if their members gave express permission for each contribution.

  6. […] Who will stand up for the First Amendment? The lede editorial in today’s newspaper rightfully thumps Democrat Rep. Jacky Rosen, who recently announced she will seek Sen. Dean Heller’s seat next year, for embracing the First Amendment-shredding effort to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that said corporations and unions have free speech rights. […]

  7. Rincon says:

    You’re catching on, Steve. Not every union member is a flaming liberal – really! Why should they forced to contribute to a candidate they abhor just because they belong to an organization? Some of these members didn’t even want to join a union, but were threatened with loss of employment, yet we call it freedom of speech when the unions commandeer the money of these unwilling workers in order to further their political agenda.

    Verbal abuse is the weapon of a weak mind. You and Athos are helping to prove that saying almost every day.

  8. Steve says:

    Coming from the “liar” user…..that is truly ironic.

  9. Rincon says:

    The word liar was accurate. You intentionally said something you knew to be wrong. And no, I don’t plan to argue about it. But feel free to berate me as usual.

  10. Steve says:

    No, you intentionally tried and failed, to change the subject.

    Once you went “liar” it was your admission in the error of your ways.

  11. Rincon says:

    This is like being in the third grade again. Not interested anymore.

  12. Steve says:

    You lost interest when you tried to change the subject.

    Oil and water are not one and the same

  13. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    I know you’d be interested in reading this, and although I’m sure it will be getting some attention in the next few days or even weeks, it probably will be muddied up by allegations that the administration is looking to prosecute the leaker, rather than addressing the findings of the American scientists.

    Enjoy.

  14. Steve says:

    read it to the very end.

    That story says climate is changing…no argument there. Never even tried to say the ever changing climate wasn’t changing.

    That story also says human activity is on probable cause for the change being seen. So, I ask again, what are the OTHER CAUSES they carefully neglect to mention?

  15. deleted says:

    Thank you Mr. Orwell. Thank you.

    “USDA office told to use ‘weather extremes’ instead of ‘climate change’

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/345599-usda-office-told-to-use-weather-extremes-instead-of-climate-change

  16. Rincon says:

    You want to know the other causes? Find them. If they exist, they’re available on line. Maybe some Conservative geniuses (oxymoron alert!) have actually done some research to explain how the Earth could warm this much without mankind’s efforts. Not likely though. Why gather evidence? Much easier and cheaper to just produce propaganda. Maybe Thomas knows. He’s the one who says the warming stopped. Probably still believes himself.

  17. Rincon says:

    Interesting article, deleted, but the Conservatives will never buy it – It has 666 pages. I suspect the upper Midwest may be a global warming winner. Our winters have been warmer over the last 30 years or so and the summers temperate with increasing rainfall. The Southwest looks likely to be a big loser, but there’s no way to tell for sure at this stage.

  18. Steve says:

    “If they exist”

    As if climate never changed before humans came into existence.

    And you peeps belittle the religious among us for believing the earth is only 6000 years old!

    talk about an oxymoron!

  19. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    Conservatives lied for years about the effects of cigarette smoking then, after “The Insider” can out and told people what the tobacco companies knew for years, and lied about, conservatives came out and loudly proclaimed that “every knew all along that cigarettes caused cancer” and attacked the people who wanted the tobacco companies to pay for their lies.

    History will repeat itself again, let’s just hope there is enough left of the earth to matter.

  20. Steve says:

    “Much easier and cheaper to just produce propaganda.”

    Yeah propaganda, like this?

    “Our planet probably experienced its hottest temperatures in its earliest days, when it was still colliding with other rocky debris (planetesimals) careening around the solar system. The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth molten, with top-of-the-atmosphere temperatures upward of 3,600° Fahrenheit.

    Even after those first scorching millennia, however, the planet has sometimes been much warmer than it is now. One of the warmest times was during the geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago. Another “warm age” is a period geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 56 million years ago.”

    So, mr. knowitall, how’d human activity do that? 56 million years ago….Oh, right; from your “if it exists” bunk; you think the only time the planet exists is when humans are on it.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

    So, mr knowitall, have a link.

  21. Rincon says:

    If you call me mr knowitall, can I call you mr knownothing?

    Let’s see…we know the Earth has warmed by natural means in the past, therefore it is not possible for it to warm by manmade means today. Is that your logic? That’s ridiculous on the face of it, but hey, why not chase this one down anyway?

    You might want to read your articles carefully before posting them next time because both bolster the present contention that today’s warming is man made. It seems that the warming you describe during the Neoproterozoic followed the period known as Snowball Earth. “During the frigid conditions of the Neoproterozoic, rainfall became rare. With volcanoes churning out carbon dioxide and little or no rainfall to weather rocks and consume the greenhouse gas, temperatures climbed.” https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been I believe our planet has substantial rainfall these days, so you’re talking apples and oranges, but the evidence suggests that rising CO2 has warmed the Earth substantially in the past. Something Conservatives say isn’t possible.

    According to Wikipedia, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum also bolsters the case for present day anthropogenic warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Possible_causes

    Firstly, the warming appears to be due to increases of CO2, again showing that CO2 rise can indeed create dramatic warming of our atmosphere. Hint: we already know for a fact that CO2 levels have risen greatly in modern times and yes, it’s from us. Let me know if you want evidence of that as well: “Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[3] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep sea.”

    Second, the change in CO2 is happening faster today than it did then: “Model simulations of peak carbon addition to the ocean–atmosphere system during the PETM give a probable range of 0.3–1.7 Pg C/yr, which is much slower than the currently observed rate of carbon emissions…” This suggests a greater warming effect now than then. Your case isn’t looking too good.

    As for the postulated causes of the elevated CO2 at the time, all would have been easily detectable today, but none are not present. Any theories besides APG as to why today’s world is warming so fast, Einstein? I didn’t think so.

  22. Rincon says:

    I’m not sure why you included the stuff about the early molten Earth. Was it for kicks or do you feel it’s relevant?

  23. Steve says:

    “we know the Earth has warmed by natural means in the past, therefore it is not possible for it to warm by manmade means today”

    I never said that.

    “both bolster the present contention that today’s warming is man made”

    I never claimed human activity is not a part of it.

    “volcanoes churning out carbon dioxide and little or no rainfall to weather rocks and consume the greenhouse gas, temperatures climbed”

    Not one iota of human activity there, eh?

    “I believe our planet has substantial rainfall these days, so you’re talking apples and oranges”

    See the news about Seattle yet?
    In any case, it was you who challenged me “You want to know the other causes? Find them. If they exist, they’re available on line.” remember? I most certainly have shown it does not require humans for the climate to change.

    “Firstly, the warming appears to be due to increases of CO2, again showing that CO2 rise can indeed create dramatic warming of our atmosphere.”

    Again, I don’t claim Co2 is not a heat trapping gas. In fact I have shown many a time I know it is.

    “Any theories besides APG as to why today’s world is warming so fast, Einstein?”

    Well mz Curie, The climate IS CHANGING! this is the reason the world is warming.
    What you refuse to realize is that is not the argument. And never has been, with me.

    It you actually read things on this, including the latest draft, then you will just now begin to see some estimates for the likely percentage of human forcing attributable to the climate change.

    Again, The solution is not to do only the “green” energy thing. The solution is to do everything, from nuclear to carbon capture and recycling. With Carbon capture/recycling we can become a net negative carbon petro fuel economy. Once scrubbed carbon will be easily made back into fuels we currently use today. And these scrubbers will take up almost no land, are viable anywhere and everywhere and will function at all times of the clock.
    But you guys just hate this because it takes away your power and control. That is your real issue with reality.

  24. Rincon says:

    “I most certainly have shown it does not require humans for the climate to change.” On this, we agree; however, I believe all of the other possible causes for the present warming have been eliminated. What’s impressive is that thirty years ago, those awful, conspiratorial scientists successfully predicted our climate today. Not a single Conservative even tried.

    “See the news about Seattle yet?” Since we’re talking about a planet wide phenomenon, what happens in a single location isn’t very relevant.

    “Well mz Curie, The climate IS CHANGING! this is the reason the world is warming.” No, the world is WARMING! That’s why the climate is changing 🙂

    My question is, who will pay for carbon capture/recycling? I don’t see how that would take away my “power and control” (as if I had any).

  25. Steve says:

    ” who will pay for carbon capture/recycling?”
    That is the best of all, it becomes a real profit motive supplying carbon for energy production. And this is why there are multiple outfits worldwide working on carbon capture. Also why liberals who wish to remain power don’t like it, they won’t be able to subsidize it, thereby controlling it like they do with wind and solar now.

    “the world is WARMING! That’s why the climate is changing”
    well no, even the science says changing climate is the reason for temperature changing. The first step is carbon in the atmosphere, human activity or not.

    “what happens in a single location isn’t very relevant.”
    Things have to start somewhere,,,and following your statement out, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with any ice melting in some remote part of the world, eh?

    “I believe all of the other possible causes for the present warming have been eliminated”
    Again, lately, reports are showing human activity is “likely” anywhere from a bit less than half to about three fourth of the causes affecting climate. This means climate would continue to change even if there were no humans to measure it today. It also means science is showing conservatives to be correct, we need to take measure based on cause and effect, not a wish and a prayer.

  26. Rincon says:

    Since fairly pure carbon, in the form of coal is literally dirt cheap, presently selling for $52.00 a ton, I cannot imagine a profit possible by extracting the 0.04% that’s in the air. Even if one could extract 100% of the carbon from air, it would require 62 million cubic feet of air to extract a ton of carbon. It costs more than that to move that much air, much less extract the carbon. According to an on line calculator, it requires an 87 horsepower motor operating for 16,000 hours to move that much air – a lot more than $52.00 worth. http://www.1728.org/mtrair.htm Sounds pretty dodgy to me..

  27. Steve says:

    Suddenly, you are an expert scientist on the subject.

    Well, better get you in touch with all those people losing their money on this wasted tech huh….

    And what about all those windmills standing still, those things are all kinds of dodgy, and those PV panels chock full of pollutants…bad stuff there.

    Not to mention, your “expert” numbers don’t add up for the application.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering

  28. Rincon says:

    “well no, even the science says changing climate is the reason for temperature changing. The first step is carbon in the atmosphere, human activity or not.” Really? Gimme a break.

    “Things have to start somewhere,,,and following your statement out, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with any ice melting in some remote part of the world, eh?” ibid

    “Again, lately, reports are showing human activity is “likely” ” So what are the other possible causes?

    Of course, whether we’re responsible for half, 2/3, 3/4 or whatever, the degree of warming we have now, if continued long term, will be disastrous. Same problem, same solutions regardless of your catch 22 demand for accurate numbers. Action (low cost only) is indicated. Only wishful thinkers deny that. Conservatives have already denied us 35 years of low cost mitigation steps. Each year we do nothing, it becomes more and more difficult to make a dent.

  29. Steve says:

    Taking my statement “Again, lately, reports are showing human activity is “likely” anywhere from a bit less than half to about three fourth of the causes affecting climate.” is disingenuous and does nothing to support you.
    And even if human activity was zero, the climate would continue to change, as you so blatantly, if unknowingly, make clear.
    So numbers, accurate or not, are finally becoming part of the science, this seems to upset you.
    The latest draft makes clear, mitigation will do little or nothing on it’s own, the report states the prediction remains at 2.5 celsius with “moderate” reductions in fossil fuel use IE “mitigation”

    Changing your stance is beneath you.
    “Things have to start somewhere,,,and following your statement out, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with any ice melting in some remote part of the world, eh?” ibid

    “So what are the other possible causes?” You apparently haven’t read the draft.
    This is expected since you refuse to read anything more than a paragraph, claiming you have a life…..then expect others to do it for you.
    They are clear and you simply refuse to see.

    “Really? Gimme a break.”
    See above, you simply don’t want to read long articles.

  30. Steve says:

    “Each year we do nothing, it becomes more and more difficult to make a dent.”
    sure…tell it to all the solar panel installers covering endless miles of Nevada desert…
    Tell that to New Jersey with all their phone polls carrying a couple hundred watts of solar each.
    Or all those windmills spread out over endless miles of hillsides in several states.

    Yeah…nothing.
    But you insist anything not in your peeps subsidized “green” world is out of the question!

    hypocrite

  31. Rincon says:

    “So what are the other possible causes?” You apparently haven’t read the draft.’

    Same garbage. You have no answer, so you simply accuse me of not having read. It was a simple question. Why is it so hard to merely answer it? It’s OK. If you merely refer me to the draft, then there’s no reason to involve you in this, is there? I’ll just read it to myself.

  32. Steve says:

    “I’ll just read it to myself.”

    Well THAT would be a refreshing change in your attack mode!

  33. Rincon says:

    As for not making a dent, try this: In 1950, approximately 30% of our electric power was from renewable sources. Today, it’s between 10 and 15%, so I was wrong. We’re not doing nothing. We’re doing less than nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States I’ll save you the trouble of hunting all over my article for the information I cite: Click on #2 in contents, entitled, “current trends” You will find a mostly blue graph on the left. Gee, that wasn’t hard at all. You should try it some time.

    As for the childish insult, it makes you look like an idiot, especially because the word hypocrite, simply does not apply.

  34. Steve says:

    Still not reading. Only “name calling” and playing games with numbers.

    And Hydro isn’t considered renewable anymore, only clean. It’s been built out and there are no more viable rivers to dam up in the country. If you could even get the environmentalists to allow any.

    smh

  35. Steve says:

    BTW, congratulations.
    You managed to change the subject of the water pipeline to one of renewable energy…..

    Nicely done.

    I concede to your obvious talents of obfuscation.

  36. Rincon says:

    Try looking above, Steve. Deleted posted a video on climate change and directed it to me and you responded. WHO changed the subject? And who cares? If you don’t like the subject changing, refuse to address the change and continue your thoughts. Otherwise, please let the rest of us converse without having to deal with insults befitting a third grader.

  37. Rincon says:

    renewable energy

    Examples
    Word Origin

    See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
    noun
    1.
    any naturally occurring, theoretically inexhaustible source of energy, as biomass, solar, wind, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric power, that is not derived from fossil or nuclear fuel.

    I think that means hydroelectric fits. Are you using a different dictionary?

  38. Rincon says:

    OK, I checked out your link. Seems to be irrelevant to this conversation. Can you explain?

  39. Steve says:

    EIA is much more relevant than wikipedia….any day of the week.

    And you responded to the “liar” snark so you get what you gets!

    We went through the whole definition thang last time. Though Hydro is is clean for the most part, it remains built out, no more to be added. It takes away from environment and is no longer considered “renewable”.
    Your “dic”tronary is full of crappola!

  40. Rincon says:

    A Web site is not what’s relevant. It’s content determines its relevance, but I suspect you cannot accept that because we apparently speak two different languages. I speak American English as defined by the dictionary. You reject dictionary definitions, therefore, you aren’t talking standard American English. I see no point in continuing.

  41. Steve says:

    Of course you don’t, you already went insult. You think it’s over.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s