Dems need an illustrative court case. Man caught paying prostitute claims his money is 'Free Speech'

[blm]

and no law can limit his use of money for 'Free Speech'.

Seriously....Why not? There is no difference and I think it could become a very compelling case, because he was definitely acting to protect his interests and using his own money to express himself.

Call me crazy, BUT, I think this type of case could be VERY effective to counter the ruling, make for GREAT headlines and editorial cartoons, and make most Americans think about what the SC did exactly in the manner it deserves.

Or....if no one is willing....perhaps a graphic, comic book, and using the exact same arguments used in McCutcheon and the exact same assents from the fascist wing of the SCOTUS.

The Dems cannot keep responding cautiously to these rulings. The RNC actively uses characters like McCutcheon to advance their fascism, why can't Dems counter as NEEDED and in a way that illustrates the wrongheadedness of the Court's pro-fascist ruling.

[notadmblnd]

1. I know if I am ever facing prison time, I'm gonna use the "I wouldn't do well in prison"

excuse.

[dorkzilla]

18. Or you could give the judge a "donation"...you know, so you can express yourself more emphatically.

It's just your way of expressing your right to "free speech".

[PoliticAverse]

26. "fare well". 'fare' is a 1% word. n/t

[pacalo]

29. I'm torn between using that one or the more heart-wrenching "I'm a rich, spoiled-rotten brat".

[blm]

2. We need volunteers.

I really think the Dems can pull this off.

The RNC would set this in motion in a heartbeat if the roles were reversed. And manage the headlines and news coverage, to boot.

[AlbertCat]

7. And manage the headlines and news coverage, to boot.

Well, they DO own the media, not the Dems, y'know.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. What we need it the kind of funding that the RW has. Massive amounts of cash are donated and used

all sorts of propaganda campaigns. People on the left are more and more put upon just trying to pay the rent and put food on the table. Volunteers can't match what the money on the Right can buy.

I would like to be wrong about this.

[Stryder]

3. Wow. Why not.

The only difference I see is that our politicians are the pimps. And guess who's getting screwed.

[blm]

4. My husband is now working on his masters in communications and agreed it would be effective

way to make the case.

Who has the courage to make it happen?

Occupy Dems!!!!

[PeoViejo]

5. Equal protection Clause...

Someone donating to a 'Terrorist' organization could claim the same.

[stevenleser]

6. I think there are a host of crimes like this that are now in question. Bribery, hiring hit men,

buying drugs, paying for prostitutes, insider trading, paying for illegal gambling.

If paying money for something=free speech, how can you prosecute for the above? Certainly things like insider trading and hiring hitmen has a conspiratorial aspect that can be charged but not the paying for it part. The severity of those crimes and their sentences would have to be reduced if money=free speech.

[blm]

8. Which is exactly why this needs to be pursued. The 'crime' I use is easily understood by masses and

especially appropriate for its similarities to the fascists and their political donations. ; )

[Zambero]

11. What if they were to become corporations?

And of course with clarification from the SCOTUS, corporations are now 'people', only with extended rights, privileges, tax breaks, gov't subsidies, and anonymity when it comes to throwing dark money around.

[blm]

12. That's even better. Didn't an activist 'become' a corporation after Citizens United?

Perhaps he would be willing to act on this.

[alfredo]

15. What is the gender of a corporation? Can mergers be disallowed in states that

don't allow same sex unions? Will these corporate persons have to declare a gender first? What if one doesn't want to be a woman because they think they are weak?

[JoeyT]

30. I think the OPs is probably the best route.

Even if you claim your money equals speech, I don't think the argument "I wasn't selling him drugs, he used his monied speech to talk me into it!" will fly.

It's pretty much gotta be something that's legal to ask for and deliver, but illegal to pay for.

[blm]

32. exactly

.

[snot]

9. Ha ha! Source?

[blm]

10. My head - I came up with the idea this morning. RNC would do it in a second

IF the roles were reversed.

[Half-Century Man]

13. So...Buying marijuana in a state without that being legal is....

An exercise in free speech advocating the responsible decriminalization of medical marijuana.
An exercise in free speech advocating the responsible legalization of marijuana of adults.
An exercise in free expression of artistic speech; ie, a living art piece exemplifying man's quest for happiness/escape by any means legal or illegal.

Up until Citizens United no judge would accept this as a defense. Now, it might be arguable possible.

[alfredo]

14. A guy buys a gun, so he was using his money (free speech) to pay for it. He then

walks into a women's clinic and exercises his free speech by killing everyone there.

[Demeter]

16. It's okay if you're 1%

and there may be enough support from 1% Johns to get this to pass...so that their supply of women for sale cheap is undiminished.

I don't think this would advance women's issues, however. Nor get the money out of politics.

[Nye Bevan]

17. See, this is why I agree with the Citizens United decision but not the McCutcheon decision.

Citizens United = I can spend a million dollars of my own money taking out advertising that says why women should have sex with me.
McCutcheon = I can give a woman a lot of money in exchange for her agreeing to have sex with me.
First is legal (I am spending my own money to engage in free speech). Second is not.

Another example. I am stopped and arrested for dangerous driving.
Citizens United = I can spend a lot of my own money pleading my case and publicizing what a great guy I am and why they should go easy on me.
McCutcheon = I can pay a million dollars to the prosecutors in exchange for them dropping the case.
First is legal free speech; second is bribery.

[ProSense]

23. No,

See, this is why I agree with the Citizens United decision but not the McCutcheon decision.

Citizens United = I can spend a million dollars of my own money taking out advertising that says why women should have sex with me.
McCutcheon = I can give a woman a lot of money in exchange for her agreeing to have sex with me.
First is legal (I am spending my own money to engage in free speech). Second is not.

Another example. I am stopped and arrested for dangerous driving.
Citizens United = I can spend a lot of my own money pleading my case and publicizing what a great guy I am and why they should go easy on me.
McCutcheon = I can pay a million dollars to the prosecutors in exchange for them dropping the case.
First is legal free speech; second is bribery.

...you just unintentionally equated an individual ("my own money&quot with a corporation, which is the problem with Citizens United: corporations claiming free speech.

[Nye Bevan]

24. "No corporation shall publish a web page critical of any election candidate

within the 6 month period prior to the election".

Constitutional?

[PoliticAverse]

27. Actually McCutcheon allows limits on direct contributions to candidates and doesn't negate your

second example being a bribe as it would be an example of 'quid pro quo'.

[jwirr]

19. Hopefully this will not change the subject here but I have a question. If we manage to get the House

and Senate back in 2014 is there any legislation that can be used to overthrow the courts decision. In other words like their decision to end the Voting Rights Act can the congress turn this around? Is that a reasonable hope?

[skepticscott]

20. Sorry, but there is absolutely a difference

between disseminating a political message to the public, and hiring a hooker. Political speech is, and should be, afforded the highest level of First Amendment protection. Not so getting your rocks off with a prostitute.

[blm]

21. Well, others may have plausible arguments to counter that.

The RNC certainly would given a reverse scenario.

[skepticscott]

25. "Others may"?

I assume that means you don't, despite your deep thought on the subject, nor, apparently, can you point to anyone else who does.

[blm]

31. Nope - I meant that legal arguments by those legal minds interested in forming a case as a strategic

move. The GOP has done this numerous times and, unfortunately, has had results with fascist judges - results that other members of the court have profound disagreement.

Yeah, skeptic....'others may'.

[skepticscott]

33. And yet you still call them "plausible arguments"

which makes me wonder. As does the fact that you can't point to any of them.

[blm]

34. Wonder away - I am pretty certain I needn't wonder about you.

.

[TheKentuckian]

22. I think they already considered similar counters and

maintained that such a direct exchange would remain illegal so if you can prove that X gave Y money (directly, mind you) and that Y then gives X a direct value for that money and only for that money rather than just as happenstance in natural order of conducting affairs then it is illegal.

In other words, you have to directly prove bribery.

These folks are evil not lacking savvy or imagination. They also consider issues for far longer than the actual trial and aren't easily caught with their pants down and when they are on occasion the just go with embracing hypocrisy. Such things won't change their minds, you must change the them.

[cthulu2016]

35. If you were paying a prostitute to give a political speech this would make sense.

But since you are not, it makes no sense.

You are not examining whether certain uses of money are protected. You are examining whether ALL uses of money are protected, and then seeing some mystery in the fact that they are not.