Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona clean elections law (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  still don't really understand (0+ / 0-)

    I still don't understand your argument. My reasoning is that the law stating that if I give 1 more dollar to candidate A then the candidate B gets 1 dollar, is unconstitutional because even though I want to give 1 dollar to candidate A, I might not want candidate B to get the dollar also, and I might be dissuaded from speaking. This is unconstitutional because the government is not allowed to enact policies that limit or dissuade people from speaking.  I fail to see how when an incumbent goes on public tv, it limits or dissuades me from supporting the other candidate. I guess if the incumbent got lots of free supportive airtime every night on that station that would be unconstitutional also, though for different reasons (probably along the lines of using taxpayer money for forced political speech, though I doubt anybody would ever have standing to challenge that).

    •  If you are disuaded from "speaking" solely (0+ / 0-)

      because your desire to suppress the speech of others outweighs, in your mind, the importance of your own speech and its content, then it is not the state restricting your speech, but your own fear of the ineffectuality of your ideas and platform.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:17:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site