Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Study Shows Surprising Unity In Popular Outrage At Recent Supreme Court Decision

February 25, 2010 by  

Study shows surprising unity in popular outrage at recent Supreme Court decision A recent survey of public opinion has found that regardless of their political views and voting preferences, most Americans are united in their criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision that relaxed campaign finance laws.

Citing constitutional rights to free speech, the highest court decided Jan. 21 to ease the limits on corporate campaign donations, allowing businesses, unions and advocacy groups to air political ads.

The decision came under fire from many politicians, with rivals such as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and President Obama speaking out against it, and it now appears the majority of Americans agree with both of them.

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, approximately 80 percent of Americans said they are against the court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, The Washington Post reported.

"If there’s one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it’s that they don’t want more special interests in our politics," said Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), quoted by the news provider.

Schumer is spearheading the effort announced by President Obama during last month’s State of the Union speech to pass legislation that would limit the impact of the court’s decision.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19627289-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Study Shows Surprising Unity In Popular Outrage At Recent Supreme Court Decision”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Harold Olsen

    People do not like corporations and businesses giving political contributions to campaigns and parties. Yet, they seem fine with unions doing it. Why? Corporations do it in a cowardly manner. They give to both parties so as to cover their butts. Unions are biased and give only to the Democrats. Those of us who are members of unions are, in effect, contributing to a party we may not support otherwise.

    Here is the kind of campaign finance reform I’d like to see:

    Only registered voters can make contributions to campaigns. Those contributions can only be made to candidates that you are eligible to vote for. Contributors must include their names, addresses and voter registration information with their donations. Contributions cannot be made to parties; only to individual candidates. This eliminates “soft money.” Wealthy politicians can not be allowed to use their wealth to finance their campaigns. The only amount of personal money they can use is what is allowed for an individual contribution. Every cent donated to a campaign must be accounted for and used only for that campaign. Any money not spent on the campaign must either be returned to the donors or given to a bonafide charity not affiliated in any way shape or form with the candidate or his campaign. The money can not be used to increase a candidate’s personal wealth. The candidate is personally responsible for every cent taken in and spent and must ensure that all donations are legal. If illegal donations are accepted and used and the candidate wins, he is immediately removed from office, no matter what that office is, and barred from running for any office for a specified number of years–say ten years.

    • Joe H.

      Harold,
      I’d like to take it a little farther on left over funds. If it’s a federal level campaign, then the left overs go towards the debt! With the amounts that Obummer raised that would be millions! Drop in the bucket yes, but many drops fill the bucket!

      • Josie60

        Here! Here! I second that!

    • Cel

      I am glad that the Supreme Court saw this as a “freedom”

      Down the road this could have hurt us…………

      All we have to do is look back a few weeks ago when “Mark Lloyd” wanted to rob us of speech. He had a job created for him in “communications”….google it and you will see.

      ***

      • eyeswideopen

        Yea, we have already been robbed of our privacy, by the Patriot Act. Hopefully speech won’t be next.

        • Joe H.

          eyescrimpedshut,
          yes by all means. you have lost SO many rights because of it haven’t you??? Gee how did you stand so many days in jail? Didn’t spend any??
          well how did you take them listening in on all your calls? They didn’t? Well it must have been such a bother to be asked for ID every where! they didn’t? how about that restricted travel from state to state? that didn’t happen? Damn then it must have been………..

    • Eugene Mouncer

      Harold, That would make all elections and the campaign money more equitable and make it so all parties had an equal chance to win in an election. This would make it the public that elects the candidate and not the wealthy or others with something to gain. Eliminating nearly all chances of illegal moves to win an election. Then to make it even better eliminate all lobbyists. So simple and effective. But with all of the graft in elections how would you get the congress to pass such legislation when they have so much to benefit the way it is. They are certainly getting enough salary and pensions to be enough for their services. Even their pensions need to be the same as ours and only start at an age instead of when they leave office.

    • Paula Gutow

      Our $$$ should be relegated to the state. No candidate should be allowed to have any of the tax coffers.

  • Joseph Fleming

    Government has no bussines deciding which American citizens have access to their 1st Ammendment right! With all the information technology out there today, people should be able to figure out where endorsements and contrbutions are comeing from and decide from there!Corporations and Bussinesses (which are made up of American citizens)should not have their free speech silenced due to certain people being to lazy to research candidates backrounds and who their contributors are. Why do we want government regulating who and when someone or some entity can speak about any particular candidate?

    • Meteorlady

      Show me a candidate that has not taken money from a corporation and I will gladly vote for that person. I could research all day and night and probably not find a single candidate.

      The fact is, elections have become big business in this country. We are sold a candidate like a box of cereal. We don’t know for sure if that’s the real person or a manufactured New York publicity firm’s portrayal of one. I do research on who I vote for, but it takes time and most Americans just buy the box of cereal that seems to fit their tastes. Then when the cereal turns out to be stale or spoiled, they are unhappy and complain.

      Corporations, Wall Street, Bankers, Pharmaceuticals, Unions etc. all contribute to campaigns. It’s to their benefit to do that and no political in office today got there without that money. Once a candidate takes that money, they owe and owe and owe. It also makes it unfair to the candidate that is not a part of the two major parties because those people can’t afford to run a winning campaign.

      If I was running and smart, I would not take any of that type of money and shout to the hill tops that I didn’t. I would use the internet to it’s best advantage and I bet I could get elected if I had the right message and was honest.

      • Joe H.

        Meteorlady,
        you could research all day and probably not find all the sources of Obummers support or in this case donations! i can guarantee if they are even shady they are buried so far that civil war dead can see them!!!

        • DaveH

          Yes, and that was in the face of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 which was sponsored by the RINO John McCain who got bit possibly by his own phony law.

        • cr747

          Joe H–DaveH,, I am glad it passed for the simple reason the bill had prohibited THE NRA from advertising 2 or 3 months before the election.. I think I’m right,, that now they are free to advertise up to the election because of the passing of this bill..

          Naturally Charles,”turtle head,” Shumer would be against it,, for he is definitely against our Second Amendment rights.. He definitely needs to be voted out when his term is up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Fred Fleming

      I guess us Flemings think alike. Right now Corporations are giving very large sums to politicians through their “Lobbiests” and there is no tracking of these funds. At least by giving to the individual the funds will be able to be tracked. If Chuck Schumer is against this, then it must be a good thing. I just wish the Main Stream Media would get out of politics and start “reporting” the news instead of trying to “Make” the news. Like Joe says…KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY BUSINESS!

      Conservative Carl is also correct on McCain-Finegold. I say vote every incumbent out! There are some good people there and I can count them on one hand, so they can run again, but to get the USA back on track, all must go so the House and Senate Rules can be changed.

      • Meteorlady

        Ah, but there is a track of sorts that lobbyist leave behind. They have to declare how much they spent and with whom and how they spent it.

        • Joe H.

          And what about greased palms, who do they declare that with???

  • Ray Perry

    Groups such as the NRA were prohibited from revealing candidates voting records before elections. That is changed now and that is a good thing. Truths may now emerge. Isn’t that good? Restrictions like that are mostly what were struck down. I’m for it.

  • Conservative Carl

    I applaud the Supreme court decision because while corporations were limited in what they could give to candidates the labor unions could give untold sums to liberal candidates. Also the McCain-Feingold legislation was designed to limit contributions to conservative candidates in my thinking. Yet the UAW, Teamsters, and the liberal NEA were able to funnel large sums to liberal candidates. George Soros also funneled money to the liberal progressives through various groups.
    Hopefully this decision will allow corporations supporting pro-American conservative candidates to give more to their campaigns. So count me as one conservative who is happy with the ruling.

    • michael

      I really don’t see too many corporations giving donations publically because they do not want to be boycotted and no matter which politician they support they could lose buisness. I know I will boycot any corp. that gives to a politician that I do not agree with.

      • Meteorlady

        Who contributes to a candidate and how much is out there on the internet. Just read before voting.

  • http://victorbarney@embarqmail.com Victor L Barney

    “”If there’s one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it’s that they don’t want more special interests in our politics,” said Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), quoted by the news provider.”

    “Schumer is spearheading the effort announced by President Obama during last month’s State of the Union speech to pass legislation that would limit the impact of the court’s decision.
    ADNFCR-1961-ID-19627289-ADNFCR.”

    The above speaks for itself because I left New York because the progressive Schumer came into the Senate. However, it didn’t work because then primarily women put in the progressive Obama in as President to seal the country with the progressive takeover of America! If America does not wake up big time during the next election we’ll lose our freedom and liberty and become a third world nation. Hey, that also is fast becoming our population in America too! Coincidence, I think not? This is called the “Internal Personality Type,” what our country was started with in a feeling of “controlling our own destiny” to the “External Personality Type,” or “people who want OTHERS” to take care of them! This Black Progressive Movement started big in the 60′s with the weathermen movement in Chicago. These two white guys(by the way) brought Obama to the white house, too! They started ACORN, on and on! If we do not get rid of these progressives(Marxist) in November, then Obama has done what he promised to do by “fundamentally transforming” our system government into Marxism! Kiss freedom & liberty goodbye if we do not vote out these Marxists ASAP!

    • Meteorlady

      Hmmmmm. Schumer. The same Schumer that has been in congress since 1981, except for one year when he ran for the Senate and won. The same one that is asking for a reconciliation vote on Health Care plan passed by the House; the same person who has $19,380,631 already stockpiled for his re-election campaign?

      Here’s a breakdown of his top five contributors:
      Paul, Weiss et al $87,850
      Weitz & Luxenberg $81,400
      Credit Suisse Group $59,700, $49,700, $10,000 PAC
      Kasowitz, Benson et al $55,750
      Sullivan & Cromwell $54,400

      Here’s a breakdown of his top 5 Industry contributors:
      Securities & Investment $1,071,150
      Lawyers/Law Firms $855,869
      Real Estate $597,449
      Misc Finance $278,000
      Insurance $198,100

      If Schumer is for this it must benefit their side greatly.

  • michael

    THis Country will be RUINED if we don’t vote out the Right wing Conservatives. It almost was between 2001 and 2005.

    • Meteorlady

      Hello Michael – see you are just venting and not adding anything again. Why not tell us some facts and figures, quit living in the past, quit the blame game and give us something, anything, that will make you more viable on this site.

      • michael

        Okay First I want everyone to be free and have the same oppertunities that means Healthcare for everyone, same sex marriage,not being told which religion one should follow and having one religion thrust upon our children. I believe everyone should be able to choose for themselves what is right and not have people such as those on the conservative side of the fence saying well since I do not agree with abotion or same sex marriage , or that my God is better than your God than I must pass laws prohibiting those things, or make it that only the rich can only afford to have healthcare.

        • Raggs

          WOW!!! Martian’s do exist!!!

          • michael

            No not a Martian, just a very Intelligent person unlike most of you posting on this site.

          • Joe H.

            michael,
            yeah just like the fairness doctrine??? The libbie bill??? We don’t agree with conservative radio and tv and we want equall time. well that was tried with air America and what happened? six years and dead. We can’t help it if you guys don’t listen to your own stations. Every Fox station has at least ten times as many viewers and listeners as their liberal counterpoint!!

        • Meteorlady

          Well nice to know you are for freedom. Now, how about I can be “free” to work and retain the money I earned without having it redistributed to someone who chooses not to work as hard as I did and save for a rainy day? How about those people get off their butts and earn something. As for religion, I believe everyone has a right to practice their religion freely and openly. Because I am against abortion does not mean that I support a ban on it because not everyone has my belief system as me and that is taking a right from them. As for health care, everyone in this country has the same rights as I do and the Constitution does not provide for health care for everyone, nor did it provide for social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid or any other social service.

          I want to be “free” to distribute the money I earn as I see fit. That’s true freedom. Least I get another “selfish” note back I will tell you what I currently do.

          I work two days a week for 6 hours each at Habitat building houses for low income people that need a leg up. I like this charity because EVERY dollar that is taken in by the organization in my county goes back into the charity. We are all volunteers including those running it. We are currently building our 50th house. Then I work one day a week for Meals on Wheels which is also a charity that spends all the money it takes in on the charity, not on salaries. This gives me the right to take my own money and redistribute it as I see fit, plus do good in the community in which I live. That, Michael, is true freedom.

          My point is, that if everyone had the money that was taken from them and redistributed to others, we would be able to fix a lot of our own problems without government bureaucracy getting involved and people would feel a lot better about themselves.

          As for health care, please……….. of the 47 million uninsured over 50% make $50,000 to $75,000 per year and ‘CHOOSE” not to take out health insurance. That is irresponsible. The balance are illegals and people that already qualify for Medicaid. The Medicaid people are either too ignorant or too lazy to go down and apply. An inconvenient truth – to quote All Gore – is that we already have government run health care and it’s not for crap and it going broke (try Medicare, Medicaid and VA). So since you advocate another government run Health Care program I can only assume that you would be a beneficiary of the program.

          • michael

            Actually I would not benifit from a public option type plan. I have very good benifits through the state job that I have. I just believe in looking out for other people. I will commend you on your charity work. I think that is great. I do however believe that health care is a right not a privlige.

          • Raggs

            Yeah and there will come a time when the working people as few as we are will get sick of working for someone else’s benefit. This I think is one of the main reasons obama got elected, The ones that voted for him knew it was going to be a free ride for them off of our dime.

          • Meteorlady

            You still did not answer the question about the rights I have.

            Do believe it’s fair that the government demands and takes my money by force and coercion and doles it out to programs that are bloated, riddled with fraud, and are not cost controlled, in order to make life better for someone that is able to work, but chooses to live off the taxpayers?

            I always contribute to people that need help with hospital and doctor bills because of bad times and unemployment. The point is that people will help out if the need is there and that’s THEIR RIGHT. It is not the right of the government to decide who we help and don’t help. They aren’t equipped to do that job – if they were this country would have no poverty and our healthcare system would be much better run. You do a disservice to people when you advocate the government control their lives and take care of them. That is not freedom – that’s socialism and/or communism and it does not work.

            You need an economics class – when 50% or the people are working to are supporting the other 50% we are basically in steep decline and that we cannot sustain. That refers to government jobs and all social programs. Any job created that does not manufacture something or provide a service to the public sector is in the 50% that is not producing and contributing to the GNP – they are only sucking up tax dollars.

          • Joe H.

            meteorlady,
            Watch the Habitat group. i hear now that they have a minimum income of 20,000 dollars a year. We know a lady on disability that applied and was 1500 short and couldn’t get it yet I know a guy that refused overtime to qualify and was accepted. right after he got the house he started right back to working overtime!!!

          • DaveH

            If healthcare is a right Michael, then so is food and shelter. In other words “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. You can read how that worked out for the Ukrainians (the Holodomor):
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

            No man has a right to ride on the shoulders of another man. If you can argue otherwise, then you can argue for slavery.

            And Michael, to contribute one’s own money is charitable. To contribute the money of others is theft no matter how you try to sugar-coat it.

          • eyeswideopen

            Meteorlady, so you are saying that DaveH, is irresponsible? He has stated that he doesn’t have insurance. I look forward to paying for his next emergency vist to hospital. It costs us who have insurance approx $1,000.00 extra a year for those who don’t have insurance.

          • DaveH

            You’re one sick Puppyess, EyesWideShut. Have another drink. Maybe then you can convince yourself that you’re a good human being.

          • DaveH

            You’re such an ignorant woman Eyes. My kind of people don’t require you to pay for anything of mine. It is your kind of people who are trying to force people to pay for others. Your twisted Liberal logic is wasted on me.

          • eyeswideopen

            DaveH, you are always complaining about people riding on someone’s back, or stealing money. While at the same time, you don’t have coverage and could very well cost the rest of us money. All I am pointing out is that your actions are hypocritical. When people like you don’t carry insurance, who do you think covers the cost? The repubs keep saying that the 30 million who don’t have coverage, can afford it, but just don’t want to pay for it, as they get it for free when they need it. Well, I am tired of people like you riding on my back and costing me more money.

          • Joe H.

            Eyesdrunkshut,
            You are so full of it it isn’t funny. you say you are tired of paying for others like DaveH, yet you support Obummer who believes the very thing!!!! He says we should spread the wealth around and we should pay for the people that don’t have insurance through taxes. what bull!

          • Joe H.

            besides eye,
            could cost and costing are two totally different animals!!! Someday I might have a heart attack and fall down an escallator and cripple you does that mean I shouldn’t be allowed on them or I should pay out money all my life to cover just that? don’t be absurd!!! Unless you can say for sure that DaveH has cost the taxpayers money by not having coverage then you have not a leg to stand on!!!

        • s c

          Michael, your second comment betrayed you. If you can make us believe that you want us to be free [on your terms, of course], I’ll be glad to show you my license to print my own money.
          The way you described being ‘free’ proves that you’re merely another ultraliberal progressive plant. Being sincere doesn’t seem to be on your menu.
          Shoo! While there’s no such thing as absolute freedom, what you imply is ‘freedom’ on YOUR terms. That’s not freedom. That’s slavery. It’s also immoral and unconstitutional.
          Your approach makes a strong case for the idea that you limit yourself to the lamestream media. If you ever read the Constitution, you obviously never understood it. Burn your copy of Dick and Jane, and then stay away from information sources that want non-thinkers.

        • Doug

          Michael you work for the state?? Which state here we go just another union lackey. Federal, State, County, city why is it that you think you can retire and have the tax payer pay for your retirement. Why do most govt jobs and unions not understand that you should not have more benefits than the people you are suppose to work for? You should all have a 401K with 3% match or close to that and that it just like the rest of us who pay the taxes!

        • DaveH

          Obviously, Michael, you don’t really mean “I believe everyone should be able to choose for themselves what is right”, or you wouldn’t try to deprive them of choosing whether or not to buy Healthcare Insurance, or whether or not to spend their money on more Government intrusion into their lives. You condone force and theft Michael. Better go have a stiff drink to convince yourself otherwise.

          • Joe H.

            DaveH,
            I think it was Michael who claimed to be a professor in a college!!!

  • Johnny Hiott

    First and foremost I would never trust what an ABC/Washington Post poll states. It may have been a legitimate poll but I’d bet it was conducted in liberal areas. Most all liberals want freedom of speech for conservatives obliterated so the truth cannot be told about their destruction of any and all rights Americans have.

  • s c

    If anyone is covering his posterior in this matter (to hide his true feelings and identity), it’s Chuckie ‘think of me as god’ Schumer. Schumer and his merry band of pc thugs have no plans for concerning themselves with doing things right.
    They will say and do anything to get what they want. An old saying claims that people who sleep with dogs tend to get fleas. To me, that’s a polte way of looking at ultralberal progressives, anarchists and assorted space cadets who are not capable of caring about anyone but themselves.
    As for the Supreme Court’s credibility, all we can do is try and see to it that those who are put there believe in the
    Constitution and have enough character to honor their obligations to the America people [AND NOT ANY PARTY, RELIGION OR FREEDOM-HATING PHILOSOPHY].

  • DaveH

    If indeed “According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, approximately 80 percent of Americans said they are against the court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, The Washington Post reported.”, then I say 80% of people are in need of education.
    No amount of money can make anybody vote any way they don’t want to vote. That can only be achieved if their choices and information are controlled by Government. Politicians are incredibly hard to unseat. It takes a lot of money and exposure to get a challenger elected over an incumbent. The incumbents know that. So they come up with rosy-sounding crap called Campaign Finance Reform which should really be called Incumbent Entrenchment Act.
    If you don’t like the Ads, don’t watch them. It’s as simple as that. Or contribute to somebody who wants to air information you do agree with.
    Our Forefathers were incredibly experienced with the tools used to deprive citizens of their freedom. And apparently 80% of the modern day population needs to relearn that experience the hard way.

    • DaveH

      Another aspect of Campaign Finance Reform is that it puts more power into the hands of the News Media. Just what we need – more power for the MSM to sway the votes.

  • Les

    Remember this, all living people have only one RIGHT. All other rights are simply on a piece of paper that can disappear in the blink of an eye. Someone can and will try to take these rights away from you but only one absolute Right cannot be taken away

  • Les

    Most people believe the Supreme Court over turned a 100 year law that forbids foreigners from contributing to to US campaigns but this is not true, this still stands. What they overturned was about 20 years old. Unions contribute millions and the law was to block corporations from doing the same thing. Unions are composed of members and not all the members agree with how their money is spent. Corporations have employees and of course all employees don’t agree how employer contributions are spent. Many people like to bash the perceived evils of corporations, but corporations give you jobs but unions don’t. In fact unions excessive demands have been one of the driving forces, along with the government, over the last several decades sending jobs out of the country

    • DaveH

      Good points Les.

  • Raggs

    This palin thing shows some ligth on the issue. First of all she WAS for the average American people and now she has lost her way to politics and corruption of money and power. At first hearing her I thougth to myself she may be a good person but that was short lived.
    All of the senators from both parties are no better and must hit the road bare footed and naked so we can see the shame the place on this country.

  • http://love-the-burbs.blogspot.com/ Douglass Holmes

    I find it amusing that a ‘Personal Liberty Digest’ would issue a diatribe against free speech. The founders did not grant free speech to individuals. They prohibited Congress from passing laws that abridged 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. What Chuck Schumer calls a ‘special interest’ I call a peaceable assembly of people. Congress has no right to prohibit them from speaking freely or lobbying. The writers of the constitution and the first amendment understood liberty better than Senator Schumer, Senator McCain, President Obama, or the writer of the above article.

    • Raggs

      LOONEY!….. You are one of the reason’s this country is being thrown to the dog’s of polictics….

      • Raggs

        You really must be another one of those that believe the constitution is a piece of paper and nobody has a rigth to anything… what a fool .

  • ONTIME

    The law was flawed and needed repealed, corporations ask you for donations for the candidate being supported, unions simply take the moneyfrom your dues and then ask you much later if you want it back. This law from McCain and Feingold should hav never passed the courts scrutiny and is another good reason for McCain to lose his seat.

  • Mark

    I don’t care what anyone thinks, given the one sided hamstring of McCain-Feingold, and that’s exactly what it was…I see no problem with it. It’s simply this…if one side can donate, all should be able to donate, period.
    No, I’m no fan of many of the special interests either, but only allowing one side and not the other is stifling free speech, no matter how you look at it.
    We had labor unions, even foreign money coming in via the blatantly obvious “gift card” schemes made supposedly in others names (restaurant workers donating more than their annual salary was a really big clue there-also note how the same perps now pushed for closing that gap-guess they don’t want competition), all donating freely…yet corporates couldn’t.
    Plain and simple one-sidedness.
    It’s about putting your money where your mouth is…part and parcel what our First Amendment is all about, whether we like it or not, and whether we like one sector or not.
    Either it must apply to ALL, or it applied to NONE.
    I choose “all” any day, otherwise First Amendment concept in this case is moot…and in abeyance.
    Think about it.

  • Eric

    Free speech is a peoples right as citizens. It does not protect foreign or corporate interests above that of our constitutional process and peoples rights there under. Bill of rights are for citizens. China now can run massive billion dollar ads to influence our representative form of government. Perhaps if this was ruled this way back in 1935 Adolph Hitler could run his ads too. Think about it. Congress can not enact law given in respect to free speech, in that the justices are correct, but they can amend the constitution to place free speach out of reach of our countries adversaries. The current administration does not give jack about the constitution so it is dangerous times. A single line amendment that adresses the issue in this particular regard is best. If it can’t be done in less then 60 words then it should not be enacted. Be ready to oppose all other amendments that may be attempted to be rammed in with it.

  • Common Sense

    I like this decision that the courts made. One tiny step back toward freedom. One giant step for the people to speak out about those running for office.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.