It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky Republican, along with two libertarians, claims First Amendment right to accept bribes

page: 1
19

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

entucky Republican lawmaker and two libertarian candidates are claiming a First Amendment right to accept gifts from lobbyists.

State Sen. John Schickel and a pair of Libertarian Party hopefuls filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court intended to overturn state ethics laws that limit campaign contributions to $1,000 and prohibit lawmakers from accepting gifts from lobbyists and their employers, reported the Lexington Herald-Leader.

“This infringes on the legislator’s, lobbyist’s, and employer of lobbyist’s right to freedom of association, and freedom of speech,” Schickel argues in the lawsuit.

Kentucky passed ethics laws in 1992 after an FBI investigation, named Operation BOPTROT, revealed 15 elected officials — including then-House Speaker Don Blandford — in the state had been selling their votes.

Schickel complained in his lawsuit that current ethics laws prevent him from attending “holiday parties, hosted by longstanding friends, who are lobbyists or employ lobbyists.”
www.rawstory.com...

Klik for more, ^ Jesus H christ!!.. dude where is my country..really?? America as a banana republic , yup we have managed to sink that low and some folks will still go to bat for these guys.
This is my second thread in the space of an hr, i am done the sun is shining.




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Thanks citizens united. That is the reason why stupid people think money is free speech.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
For those of us that have actually bothered to read CU.



The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.


en.wikipedia.org...

What a shame John Schickel didn't follow this lead.

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Just one of many reasons why we need term limits and campaign finance reform. Politicians will do anything to take advantage of corporate donations and gifts. If we continue to allow them to make a career out of their political office, the more powerful and ignorant they become.


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Irrelevant - as usual.

These guys are petitioning to be able to accept money outright - that is not "independent political expenditures" - that is bribery.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Due to the recent stories coming out of Kentucky I can confidently say:




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I think you mean, "Where has the Republican Party gone?" And I think I have the answer, "Bat-Crap" crazy, that's where!"

I'm surprised he's not also standing up for the Mafia's right to charge businesses a monthly fee to insure that their shops don't get burned down in the night.

At this point in time, I find it difficult to identify a single redeeming quality in the Republican Party and I am at a total loss when tasked with trying to explain how anyone could support such lunacy.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

All politics is bribery.

Vote for me I will give you stuff says the left and right.

Gimme that vote, and I will make sure your grandma won't be thrown over a cliff.

Another one says Gimme that vote, and I will make sure you won't have to pay your fair share.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Another one says Gimme that vote, and I will make sure you won't have to pay your fair share.


Ya I know those tax breaks on the 1% really help them out

edit on thMon, 28 Sep 2015 20:32:51 -0500America/Chicago920155180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Couldn’t agree with you more, Spider879.

It’s not bad enough that our system of governance has become so corrupted, but the fact that our people have allowed it to happen, and have come to actually support it, is even worse. It’s appauling.

I get so disgusted with politics sometimes, I can’t help but think that maybe it’s just too late to turn the ship around; maybe we’ve passed the point of no-return. It seems anymore (to me) that we’re in kind of a free-fall, and the chute just ain’t gonna open.

And the worst part is, these jokers claiming that their 1st amendment rights are being violated will likely gain even more voter support than they previously had. It’s a state sponsored cluster-f*ck. Roll over, Thomas Jefferson. Meet the new America.

Go figure....



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879



My award to these guys . Fitting isnt it ?




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I was about to say how much I was against politicians accepting bribes until I realized the article wasn't talking about bribes. I realize the article title says bribes, but talk about a slanted title and some out of context BS. This is actually a non-issue.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Since when does speech equal money? I mean come on. Also...

Schickel complained in his lawsuit that current ethics laws prevent him from attending “holiday parties, hosted by longstanding friends, who are lobbyists or employ lobbyists.” - from source

I mean really? They're your longstanding friend you never would have meet without them lobbying you.

Lobby - a group of people seeking to influence politicians or public officials on a particular issue

Bribe - persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement

Hrm... Can I lobby a judge for my traffic tickets?
edit on 28-9-2015 by NWOccupation because: Spelling

edit on 28-9-2015 by NWOccupation because: added definitions



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: NWOccupation
Since when does speech equal money? I mean come on. Also...

Schickel complained in his lawsuit that current ethics laws prevent him from attending “holiday parties, hosted by longstanding friends, who are lobbyists or employ lobbyists.” - from source

I mean really? They're your longstanding friend you never would have meet without them lobbying you.

Lobby - a group of people seeking to influence politicians or public officials on a particular issue

Bribe - persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement

Hrm... Can I lobby a judge for my traffic tickets?




rm... Can I lobby a judge for my traffic tickets?


Probably cheaper to just pay the damn fine.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Kentucky.......need I say more.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I think they have a very valid legal point here. Just because it is absurd, does not mean it is not correct. Since I am a self educated libertarian myself, I understand what they are trying to accomplish. They are attempting to point out one absurdity simply by creating another. Words do mean things. Rights are held equally by all men and since we decided that corporations have this right also, this brings back balance. The Supreme Court did their job and interpreted the law. It is not their job to help you find a way to counter it.

All problems have solutions. All questions have answers. Just because you don't know the solution or understand the nature of the answer yet does not deny that it exists. Justice is about balance, not elimination of opposition. The answer is never limiting free speech. The answer is allowing everything under the sun whether you agree with it or not. No words should be banned from being used on the airways simply because you don't want to hear them. Don't tell me that children might hear them, it is your job to watch your children, not mine and it certainly is not the government's job. If you don't like the content of a radio or TV program, don't watch it. If you are offended then voice your disapproval to the owner of the station or network and the sponsors of their shows. If you are afraid of what your kids might see when your aren't looking you are failing to see the true root of the problem: lack of honesty with your kids and your failure to educate them. You can immunize your kids and prepare them for anything they will encounter in life by allowing them to be exposed to as much of the world as possible and discussing it with them afterwards. I know there are some things out there that can create nightmares for people but those things are still out there even if you cover your ears or cover your eyes and try to ignore them. By avoiding a discussion of ideas with your children you are forcing them to face them on their own. Do you want them to be guided by your sense of right and wrong or someone else's? Stop running away from problems, be an adult and raise your children yourself.

I offer this solution free of charge. I hope every person in the US and around the world reads this, thinks about it and draws their own conclusions about whether I am right or wrong. If you agree with me tell your friends, tell your neighbors, scream it from mountain tops and help me pull this once great nation back out of the grasp of men who do not have your best interests at heart. The answer is not term limits. The answer is not limits on donations or exclusion of ideas that we don't like or agree with. The answer is not limiting who can give what to who and how much they are allowed to give. The answer is the same one the founders of this great nation wrote into the very fabric of this country: Limit power.

I propose a new constitutional amendment to clarify this issue and help mend the holes in our freedom. I propose that we limit power with one simple change. There should be no limits to how many years you can serve in office. The only limits are the electorate putting you back into office and the sum total of your lifespan. I propose only one limit. You can no longer be in office for consecutive terms. Let the corporations buy their politicians by the dozen, but let them also know that every four to six years they will need to buy a new one. I think this will solve several problems. Corporations may end up spending so much of their shareholder's profits buying politicians by the pound that the shareholders finally start putting pressure on them to go back to the job of making money. Maybe some of that money will go to something useful like making the world a better place instead. We can only hope.

Get up. Voice your opinions. Make them hear you in their locked offices behind closed doors with closed minds.

Vote.

Put your hand to your ear. Do you hear that? That is the true sound of hope and change you can believe in.

By the way, I'm in Kentucky as I write this. Ever heard of a man named Henry Clay? He was a proud Kentuckian too. Go see what he was about.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
Kentucky.......need I say more.
Lets not put down a whole states worth of people. Put the blame where it belongs. The people in the entire country can no longer be held accountable for who they elect, because even the informed voter is getting saddled with # choices and lying corrupt officials to vote for. It doesn't matter which party line you toe, they're both wings on the same sick bird.







 
19

log in

join