In a few days the US Supreme Court will hear Vermont's Attorney General, William Sorrel, argue that Vermont's law, limiting both campaign contributions and spending in state elections does not limit freedom of speech and is therefore constitutional.  Shortly after Sorrel's appearance, lawyers for Anna Nichole Smith will argue that she should recieve her muolti-million $$$ inheritance.  Sorrel says he will hang around to hear the oral arguments (my guess is that at least a few of the justices would prefer that Anna do the orals  ;)).  From the suplime to the rediculous, but given Anna's talent (or lack there of) I hope she wins.  More importantly, I hope Vermont's law passes constitutional muster in the eyes of the court.  It is a potentially important check on the influence of big money on politics.

I'm on Annas side.  The law is the law in and in a  spousal inheritance and will like this doesn't say, "except for the one your father married and you didn't pay much attention too until you found out she got the money you figured you were gonna get."

I'm on Annas side.  The law is the law in and in a  spousal inheritance and will like this doesn't say, "except for the one your father married and you didn't pay much attention too until you found out she got the money you figured you were gonna get."


I recently saw a late night unrated Anna Nichole film (she cavorted) and figure that she really does need to win, but the really important case is the Vermont campaign finance law.  The question, of course, is does the ability to spend money equal free speech?  Vermont's law could become a model for reforming politics across the country if it upheld, by making it much harder to buy political office or influance over office holders.  It would also make it much easier for just plain folks to run for office.  In short, it could lead to a major victory for the little guy and a major loss to the fat cats.

I recently saw a late night unrated Anna Nichole film (she cavorted) and figure that she really does need to win, but the really important case is the Vermont campaign finance law.  The question, of course, is does the ability to spend money equal free speech?  Vermont's law could become a model for reforming politics across the country if it upheld, by making it much harder to buy political office or influance over office holders.  It would also make it much easier for just plain folks to run for office.  In short, it could lead to a major victory for the little guy and a major loss to the fat cats.


A point could be made that in some cases the ability to spend money, at a certain point, quashes the
rights of those without the the ability.  When does free economic speech(that distinction should be made)
actively smother the rights of those not similarly situated, shouting down dissent?

A point could be made that in some cases the ability to spend money, at a certain point, quashes the
rights of those without the the ability.  When does free economic speech(that distinction should be made)
actively smother the rights of those not similarly situated, shouting down dissent?


When those with the $$$ can monopolize air time and the print media, when they can afford to send out "talking points" to a mialing list of thousands, some of whom dutifully write letters to the editor as if those T.P.'s were their own, when they can buy crowds and cherry pick audiences. 

When those with the $$$ can monopolize air time and the print media, when they can afford to send out "talking points" to a mialing list of thousands, some of whom dutifully write letters to the editor as if those T.P.'s were their own, when they can buy crowds and cherry pick audiences. 


Of course you can always use those "talking points" as T.P.  ;D ;D ;D




Cat

Of course you can always use those "talking points" as T.P.  ;D ;D ;D




Cat


I'd like to spike the TP with a few pointed barbs, but that probably wouldn't sit well with them  ::)

I'd like to spike the TP with a few pointed barbs, but that probably wouldn't sit well with them  ::)


Not to be critical, but I think you made a typo, left out an "H".