(Updated) Dem. Congressman Fails to Clarify ‘I Think the Constitution is Wrong’
- Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:57am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
(Editor’s note: the Congressman‘s office has responded to The Blaze’s original story. See that response at the bottom.)
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) may have minced words when defining his stance on campaign finance reform. Or if not, that may be the only way to stomach his shocking statement about the Constitution.
During a recent debate with his challenger Marty Lamb, McGovern began explaining that the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision is inappropriate. During that explanation, he made the statement “I think the Constitution is wrong”:
We have a lousy Supreme Court decision that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings.
To be fair, McGovern could have just tripped over his words. The conversation centered on the Supreme Court and he might have mistakenly said “Constitution” instead of “Court.” But when given the opportunity to clarify his statement, he punted. In an exchange with an apparent audience member, McGovern denies ever making the claim:
(H/T: Stephen Gutowski)
“I’m sorry I blew your mind but I didn’t say that the Constitution was wrong,” he told the audience member. “I said that the interpretation by my friend here was wrong.”
Calls to the Congressman’s office requesting comment were not immediately returned.
UPDATE:
Michael Mershown, Congressman McGovern’s press secretary, called back and said that the comment was simply a slip of the tongue: “He meant to say that he disagreed with the court decision [Citizens United], and instead said he disgreed with the Constitution.” When asked why the Congressman denied the comment, McGovern said the Congressman at the time did not realize he had made the mistake.
McGovern’s campaign also e-mailed to provide a comment from the Congressman:
“Last night, I had a slip of the tongue. While answering a question about the awful Supreme Court campaign finance decision, I used the word ‘Constitution’ rather than ‘Court Decision.’”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 679 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 530 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 426 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 281 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 289 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 170 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 281 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (122)
Nepenthe
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:50pmFor many on here, it baffles me on how some believe that a document, which put into law that black people are only 3/5ths of a human being, cannot possibly be wrong.
Some of you might argue that this was corrected through amendments and you would be correct. Why was it corrected? Because the constitution was wrong.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:07pmStraw man. Nobody has claimed it cannot possibly be wrong. If you desire a conversation with yourself, you needn’t employ a public forum.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:10pmNepenthe, you just demonstrated your own ignorance about the Constitution. Blacks only counted as 3/5s of a human being, because the Conservatives of the day did not want the Liberals of the day using slaves to gain control of Congress through apportionment. Had blacks counted as 1 person each when the country was founded, we would probably still have slaves today.
What I find baffling are people who think that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves from an intrusive government, freedom against self-incrimination and the other freedoms enumerated in the Constitution are somehow passé.
Report Post »msk440
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:17pmThe opponents of slavery pushed for that addition to highlight the egregious treatment of people caught in the yoke of slavery. It stood at the time as an example of how the practice reduced slaves to less than human. It was not an affirmation of their status,it was a condemnation of it.
Report Post »red penny
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:38pmLame ass argument—-doesn’t apply in the here and now!!!!!!!
Report Post »wartaw1776
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 2:21pmBut that is the glory of the Constitution: if what the Constitution states is wrong, our Founding Fathers placed a method within this Document to fix it in the form of an Amendment.
Report Post »Eric-n-OTown
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 2:55pmI suggest you hit your history books (ones before the progressive era, preferably). The clause regarding the enumeration of slaves was intended to limit the power of the Southern States, they used their own argument of black people not being fully-human against them, in order to limit their representation in Congress. Without being a free man, a black man in the South had no power to vote, and therefore his vote would go to his master, who would use the enumeration of his slaves to increase his voting power. The Constitution limited this ability, by stating that slaves could only be counted as 3/5 of a person. This severely handicapped the Southern States and ensured that abolition would eventually win out. Had it not been for that clause, the Southern States would have been able to control Congress indefinitely through superior numbers of Representatives, bolstered by an ever-increasing number of slaves.
Now, if after doing the research, you find that any part of my statement is incorrect, I happily look forward to correction.
Report Post »dugirl232
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:50pmCongressman, Hitler was wrong too.
If it wasn’t for the Constitution, you wouldn’t be a representative. You’d be a peasant to a king.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:48pmWhen are we going to start treating these people like the traitors that they are? We need to get back to the point where politicians don’t feel so comfortable advocating treason against Our Constitution.
Report Post »229Mick
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:47pmWell, the COURT is wrong (again) a corporation does NOT have the same rights and privileges as a person. That decision was one of their worst.
Report Post »Susan Harkins
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 2:19pmEven the playing field. Take the Unions out of the campaign contribution picture, and I’ll reconsider. Until then….
….Throw everything at the Progressives and wipe the DEM Socialists from the pages of history!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 8:29amA corporation is a gathering of individuals. Individuals do not lose rights by gathering into groups, nor do they gain rights by doing such. The owners of a company, thus, have every right to use the fruits of their productive effort and property in any way they wish, to express whatever they wish, especially in regards to politics.
The Left is panicked because they thought that they had denied people from being able to apply economic self defense, while still allowing themselves the luxury of almost infinite financing. If I as a company owner cannot use my own property and means to express myself, then the entire notion of freedom of speech is null and void. SCOTUS ruled correctly, there is actually no *real* controversy about this at all, except that generated by Leftists who are now scared crapless that their targets now get some way to fight back.
Report Post »pc_mechanic
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:41pmI heard one person clapping in the background…a wellspring of support for this guy.
Report Post »Redhawk
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:40pmI think he missed spoke….But,If he does believe the Constitution is wrong, then It makes me wonder how many in congress believes the same thing. It also would explain why no one in congress has challenged the constitutionaliy of President Obama having all his czars.
Report Post »tjdavid21444
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:35pmAnd just why is this congressman so intent on silencing groups of people who band together, pool their money, and contribute to political campaigns, but he has no problem with uber-billionaires like George Soros pouring millions into elections through front groups like mediamatters, the tides foundation, s.o.s. and center for american progress?
Report Post »red penny
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:34pmThis clown is so far left that he has to have sushine shipped in! He’s a disgrace and should not walk the halls of congress.A long walk off a short pier would do wonders for this slug!!!
Report Post »Susan Harkins
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:31pmI am sorry that I blew your mind?
I didn’t say what I just said?
Scrape this clown off stage with a big stage hook, and let’s move forward with “TAKING AMERICA BACK”!
Report Post »conservativeBC
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:31pmShocking Video of MN Rep D Betty McCollum! http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2010/10/shocking-video-of-mn-rep-d-betty.html
Report Post »tellin_you_now
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:29pmHe meant to say that the recent Supreme Court decision was wrong.
Report Post »Alydia
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:26pmGo dig a hole and crawl in it McGovern…could that be shovel ready? No one, who has the ability to think, really wants to hear what you have to say!
Report Post »kamin
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:26pmMarty Lamb has an excellent chance of defeating McGovernment. Pass the word to your Mass friends, donate, pray, and anything else that might help.
Report Post »Not Your Typical New Yorker
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:22pmYou didn’t blow our mind but we are sure going to blow yours come November 2, watch for it…
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:21pm” I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings.”
Straw man. The court ruled that money is speech in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). Citizens United ruled that you remain a citizen with full Constitutional rights no matter if you join a Volleyball team, a Dance Club, or a Corporation.
So idiot misspeaks while making a deceptive obfuscation so as to setup a straw man argument. Oh what a tangled web we weave….
Report Post »Nepenthe
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:46pmNot entirely true, as you lose several constitutional rights when you join the military.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:09pmI’m afraid my commentary *is* entirely true. That *is* precisely what Citizen’s United ruled.
If you continue having issues with English comprehension, there are surely many community colleges in your area offering remedial courses at reasonable rates.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 8:25amNepenth, you cannot lose rights, you can only agree not to exercise them (for example, you agree not to walk into WalMart with a concealed weapon), or you can have your exercise of them prevented (by force), but the actual rights are always with you, they are unalienable. Rights are endowed on us by The Creator, and cannot be taken away or revoked except by Him alone. This much has always been clear.
Report Post »Kisha Majors
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:20pmMore backwards talking! Fun…. = (
Report Post »Awakenow
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:15pmI believe he just gave evidence of a violation of his oath of office. We should all be calling for this mans resignation, NOW!
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:12pmDid he just say that he didn’t say what he said? Hmmmm, maybe the truth is with all of those “shovel ready jobs”.
Report Post »bbquizzle
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:19pmObama’s term is shovel ready.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:12pmIt’s obvious to any thinking person that he meant to say the Supreme Court is wrong. Don’t be morons like the left and do hit pieces over non-issues.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:40pmWhy didn’t he just say “Oh, did I say Constitution? Sorry, I meant Court”. Than there would be no argument.
Report Post »Steve Smith
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:11pmIdiots. All of ‘em.
Report Post »Xyskalla
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:10pmI agree that it looks like he just tripped over his words the way we all do at times. Looks to me like a non-news item.
Report Post »Dan
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:55pmNormally, I would agree with you, but there is a glut of progressives that want to attack the constitution and treat is an elastic clause and interpret as they see fit. I tend to think that he showed us his cards and wants to backtrack. I’m sure he has a record on the subject and one can track him from here on.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:05pmGive time to have him clarify. I’ve disagreed with a number of SC decisions like Rowe-Wade. Haven’t all of you?
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:13pmStraw man. This conversation is about a claim that the *Constitution* is wrong, not that a ruling is wrong. So, Contrarian, I note that you are unerringly lenient on every liberal, and unerringly harsh on every Conservative.
Why is that?
Report Post »tjdavid21444
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:15pmHe can have all the time he wants, but what difference would it make? He belittled an audience member (as if a frigging congressman could blow anyone’s mind) and then flat out lied. HE DID SAY he thought the constitution was wrong. There is no doubt about it, you can play the tape over and over, and he will still be saying the same thing. Then he tells the audience member that he did not say what he actually did say.
Report Post »MONEYTALKSBSWALKS
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:07pmPROSPERO is correct, this is about what he said in regards to the Constitution. But if you want to open Pandora’s Box. Roe v Wade is more than a ruling, it’s the Court trying to dictate what a woman does w her body. I am not for abortion as a form of birth control but I am more so against laws dictating to women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. It has to start somewhere, the control that is. Once they pass laws regulating men and their bodies, such as how many children men can father if they are abandoners, whether economically and/or physically=mentally, then I will revisit this topic. And I am not talking about abandoning the significant other, I am talking the kids. But that is an entirely different subject.
Report Post »If this was a slip-up.. then fine. But the current Admin and their history leads me to believe they would be fine w burning the Consitution in order to pass their social agenda.
I mean we are “the People”, right? Why don’t we throw them ALL out and start over from scratch. I propse anything they pass, not only effects “the People” but also the governement. We all live under the same rules and benefits. I bet that I wouldn’t have to worry about the future of my Social Security, Health Care, Country, or daughter for that matter. Just imagine, if China called in their debt we’d be the “NEW” Republic of China bc we CANNOT pay back the trillions we owe. Stop being so dependent on outside markets, become producers and manufacturers, instead of outsourcing in order to cut costs. We do all of these things and look at the mess we’re in now w unemployment @ 9%, up from 5% a few years ago, the economy at a standstill. I could go on and on but I have to get back to work. I‘m one of the lucky one’s working for a living, paying my housenote and bills, barely surviving check to check, spending less and less time w my daughter. Somethings have changed for the better andn others for the worse.
Mr.Nick
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:04pmI think the Constitution is half right and half wrong.
I think the Bill of Rights is right and I think Amendments XI – XXVII are the works of tyrants. Most of XI – XXVII contradicts the Bill of Rights.
Report Post »meisterschaft
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:06pmWell…since the constitution was perceived as a “power grab” by some groups, they pushed for the “bill of rights” which in my opinion is not needed since the constitution is so clear.
Report Post »ron the veteran
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:25ami got the cure for any of you who think the constitution is wrong…..get out! go see how the rest of the world works. i think that anyone who is unhappy here should be shown the door. i am so sick of losers comming to this country and trying to turn it into the country they came from. its time to send them home. we are to free with our citizenships. and anyone who snuck in should go to jail for a few years before we throw them out never to be aloud to return. its time to take our country back and put things right again.
Report Post »timej31
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:04pmHehe yea the Constitution is wrong. Nice.
Report Post »Mike777
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:04pmGod help please !
Report Post »ME
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:21pmI think God has abandon use, our arrogance tends to be a put off. Mix the arrogance with ignorance and we are on a fast road to insignificance (bliss as the left would believe) I see no one with the gut to stand up for the constitution much lest reverse the raging river of decline they may slow it for a while but turn it back I would like to see it but have little faith in my fellow mans strength against the demon that Government is becoming.
Report Post »starman70
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:23pmAmen!
Report Post »Skwerl E. Muckenfutch
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:55pmGod didn’t abandon us, he’s just applying some laissez-faire policy. He points the way, its our job to walk on it or blaze our own path.
Report Post »1Crewsader
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:59pmGod hasn’t abandoned us, God moves in his own time and as he told us we will prevail as all will see on November the 3rd, and again in November of 2012.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:02pmMaybe you guys don’t watch the news much, but the issue is about a campaign finance law that limited the campaign spending of organizations like corporations and unions. The law was struck down as unconstitutional – a very controversial decision. To say “the Constitution is wrong” doesn’t even make sense in this context. He slipped up.
In any case, now labor unions can swoop in with 10 zillion dollars and put signs in every yard, and commercials for their candidate on every channel, 24-7. The only limit is how much money they have. I hope that makes everyone happy.
Report Post »John 1776
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:28pmMaybe God has abandon us, and rite-fully so, as we have abandon Him. But…. I don’t think so. I think He is like the dad that caught us smoking and forced us to smoke the whole pack!
Report Post »Mary M. Tebbe
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:33pmme: God has not abandoned His people. Jeremiah 31: 35 – 37 tells us, “This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar – the Lord Almighty is his name: Only if THESE DECREES VANISH FROM MY SIGHT, declares the Lord, WILL THE DESCENDANTS OF ISRAEL EVER CEASE TO BE A NATION BEFORE ME. This is what the Lord says: Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out WILL I REJECT ALL THE DESCENDANTS OF ISRAEL because of all they have done.” God has not and never will abandon us. We still operate by the laws of God in regard to the sun, moon, and stars. Nothing has changed since God created the heavens and the earth. Therefore, God still has everything about His People under control. But we cannot remember that we are God’s ancient people, because our history has been erased, distorted, and destroyed. I have rewritten your distorted history; all 6,300 pages of it. God knew that satan and his worshipers would do everything they could to destroy the history of his ancient people that He chose (see 2 Samuel 7: 23 – 24), so God made a way to preserve the true history of the ancient Israelites and their descendants that no man could destroy. Since 9/11 I have worked to put your true history back together again, and the book has been done for 2 years. The problem is, publishers don’t want to publish such a book, because it will create controversy and they don’t have the courage to go ahead with it because they are too scared. Well, when you want to read it, you can find me easy enough! I have written 300 – 500 pages of history pertaining to each of the 12 tribes of Israel. What an amazing story our ancient forefathers of the 12 tribes of Israel left us, right under the noses of their enemies!!! :)
Report Post »We are the last FREE PEOPLE and our enemies are doing everything they can to make sure that we become a conquered people and join the rest of the people of the world that have fallen to their wicked devices. We must do everything we can to preserve this SINGLE GREATEST NATION THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. Look at what a compassionate people we are. We helped to rescue 33 Chilean miners that would have otherwise perished, and we do so much to bless the world. If we fall, who will the world have to turn to for help and for an example of a free people?!
snowleopard3200
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:52pm@ME remember what lord Jesus said, if you have the faith of a mustard seed the mountains will move at your command. This means even with a little faith, and God using us with that faith, anything can be withstood and dealt with. That is why I tell people to stand with God and with the Constitution for He will see us through these times. It wont be easy, that much for sure, yet we can make it as the citizens of America.
It takes a lot to get an American really ticked off and do something about a problem, but now we are and so we shall get rid of the problems this november – vote, vote, vote!!!
http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mixed art)
Report Post »Punderous
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 2:04pmSometimes you need to give folks the benefit of the doubt. Campaign finance is a tough one. I do believe that we are a nation of laws and those laws define and protect the rights of the people. And for the purpose of providing context we treat corporations as living entities within the legal system. Of course here in lies the rub… They are not living entities with souls endowed with iinalienable rights by their creator. However, they are self aware. And like any self aware entity they wish to procreate and survive.
If a group of people wish to pool their resources to assist a candidate become elected then I say let them. But let them send their donations in as individuals. They can organize themselves into donation blocks so that monies are distributed as they wish. But, only contributions from individuals can be accepted. Removing corporate donations to campaigns is the only way to clean up this area of the election process. I think that it will also have some good side effects:
1. It will encourage a few more folks to consider candidates positions before the write a check
2. It will encourage the art of discussion, debate and persuasion.
3. Corporations are sometimes headed by folks who do not have the interest of their constituents or the nation in mind. These kinds of people should not be influencing legislation. This would reduce this problem.
One final thought…. Perhaps monies from outside a district should not be used to influence an election in that district. Why is it that folks in New York should want to donate to an election in North Carolina… There is only one possibilitie… They wish to establish a disproportionate level of influence over legislation by depriving another district of proper representation.
Sorry for the long post.
Thoughts?
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:08pmI believe that God is always talking to us and always offering to help us – no matter how much trouble we’ve gotten ourselves into… The turnaround comes when we actually start listening to God with the humility to follow his loving coaching.
Report Post »Robert W
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:06pmIm tired of writing “liberalsim is a mental disorder” so for now on its just- LIMD!!!
Report Post »ME
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:09pmI may be off on abandon but surly we are a prodigal son that you would turn away from till they return to the fold, and the example of smoking the whole pack was excellent. I see a good things happening in Nov but still feel that the RNC my have some enlightenment but still are have a long way to go. I guess the test will be if we are expected to hold our nose in 2012 and see another McCain type lib in conservative clothing. Just seems even if we do win will they repair the damage to the constitution or only not add to it? The first step must be to have term limits without them well this just be 1994 all over again?
Report Post »jzs
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 6:22pmPunderous, I like your description of the issue and your ideas. But since you’ve explored a gray area in a black and white forum, don’t expect any responses.
Personally I’m in favor of moving toward “one person, one vote“ and away from ”one dollar, one vote.”
Report Post »Poppa D
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 6:24pmAmen
Report Post »condera
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:10pm@PUNDEROUS: No, that is one of the ways we have gone wrong as a nation. Although there should be some laws setting general standards of morality, the vast majority of laws should be to limit and restrain government from intruding into our lives. We have allowed our government to continue to make more and more laws, ever more encroaching on and terminating our rights and freedoms. Put another way, if you need government to legislate your rights, you have already lost them.
Report Post »sickofitall
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:00am@ Mary Tebbe Did you really have to do that? Were you just over buzzed on coffee in the twilight hours?
Report Post »The discussion is about the Constitution and how most politicians have either no consideration for, or hold a negative view of that which they were sworn to protect and defend.
I don’t doubt your sincerity, but save your personal view of biblical history at home or at Sunday school. Try to stick with the conversation. It’s this kind of outburst that makes the Left say, ‘See, they‘re all a bunch of religious fanatics like the Westboro freaks’.
Libertarian
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:47pmWe are not talking about votes. We are talking about commercials, videos and ads in newspapers and on TV. We cannot disallow an entity, whatever their name (corporation, foundation, organization, party, marriage or union) the ability to pool money in support of a cause or person. We would essentially be prohibiting a group of like minded individuals from political expression.
Report Post »A corporation should be allowed to engage in any and all forms of political expression, as they are merely a group of individuals.