You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #: I find it odd that the President would put the final nail in the coffin of the [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-15-13 04:34 PM
Original message
I find it odd that the President would put the final nail in the coffin of the
Edited on Tue Oct-15-13 04:39 PM by No Elephants
Fairness Doctrine, yes. But, then again, I also found his cooperation with privatization of the US Postal Service odd. And so many other things.

About money in politics,

A Democratic Congress passed some campaign finance restrictions. Ford vetoed. Democrats overrode his veto. So far, so good.

But then,

A lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the D.C., on January 2, 1975, by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, former Senator, 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, and others.

snip

They argued that the legislation was in violation of the 1st and 5th Amendment rights to freedom of expression and due process, respectively.




Buckley was a Republican who had switched parties--to the Conservative Party. McCarthy was, of course, a Democrat. So, politicians of both the largest political parties in the country were of one mind about this lawsuit.

Several provisions of the campaign finance laws were struck down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo


The other right given (or affirmed) by Citizens' United was the right to remain anonymous. The SCOTUS first articulated that First Amendment right in NAACP v. Button, when law enforcement was demanding that the NAACP turn over its membership list. The SCOTUS used the Button doctrine to say that Citizens United did not have to disclose its donors. Funny, huh, how a rule can seem so right and so just in one case and so foul in another?



I could not agree with you more that elections are being bought and they should not be bought.

I don't know what you mean by plutocrats are different now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC