4 ms·
>Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to yo
by crazy1van 13y ago
>Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you.
Great point. The only way to limit contributions from the likes of the NRA but not from groups like the EFF is to focus regulations on the message or messenger itself. That kind of thinking goes completely against free speech. It is also dangerous. Your message may get preferential treatment today, but not necessarily tomorrow.
- hga 13y agoBTW, this decision doesn't touch on PAC contributions, just ones from individuals. Although it should be pointed out the NRA's contributions are subject to these individual limits, per http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml it looks like $5K per election. Which is not a lot of money, more of a signal of approval. Which is important, because the IRS is promulgating regulations to enshrine their abuse of "Tea Party" groups, which much like the ones struck down in Citizens United would prevent it from making communications about candidates 60 days before an election (30 before a primary; see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Proposed-Guidance-for-Tax-Exempt-Social-Welfare-Organizations http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Pro... ). It's hard to express how dangerous this is....