Did I bring up Citizens United?
@TommyLucchese you get a choice.
No, it is not. Because they weren’t lobbying anyone.
That’s irrelevant to the Constitutional question, which is the same in both cases.
No, it is not. What is the Constitutional question?
What restrictions on speech - with the purpose of preventing corruption of government and the appearance thereof - meet strict scrutiny?
Is it? Whose claim was the purpose?
Yes.
I don’t quite understand what you’re asking.
Ok, if you’re sure. You disagree with strict scrutiny not applying to lobbying?
Who claimed the law was to prevent corruption?
Strict scrutiny does apply to any restrictions on lobbying.
Congress.
Says the white, Christian man, in the majority. Check.
You feel it should?
Did they? Or did the FEC creep the intent?
Well, there isn’t really any way around it.
I’m not white. You feel white privilege exists in countries where white people are not the majority? Like say those I lived in for 25 years? Who do you feel might have had the privilege there?
1 Like
Sure there is, and an easy rationalization. Citizens United was not lobbying.
That’s like arguing that Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to the internet because we’re typing, not speaking.
Lobbying is explicitly protected by the Constitution - definitely more so that donating to a campaign is.
Well, there was S Africa.
Is it? Are you forgetting the quo?
Is it?
Pathetic. So locked in you fall apart at the simple truth.
Yes. If there’s a quo, there’s a crime. Prove the quo. Yes.
