Hecklers at Values Voters Summit Angry about Campaign Finance, Not Gay Marriage

So, what are lefty protesters angry about at the largest annual gathering of social conservatives?

Is it the Republican Party's hostility to marriage equality? No.

What about the GOP's efforts to limit access to abortion in the event of rape or incest? Nope.

Maybe the party's insistence that religious freedom is under attack? Nah.

Lefty protesters at the Values Voters Summit today protested corporate money in politics.

Demonstrators from Take the Money Out of Politics and Act Up Philadelphia interrupted vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan's late morning speech at the social conservative confab with shouts of "Get money out of politics!" and "Corporations aren't people!" They were quickly shouted down with the now standard chant of "U-S-A!" while being escorted out of the hall by security and Secret Service officers.

Protesters handed out a press release that said that want the Romney-Ryan ticket to throw their support behind a constitutional amendment that would declare "corporations are not people and money is not free speech."

Here's a video of the aftermath:

Comments

[Episiarch]

Lefty protesters Values Voters Summit today protested corporate money in politics.

They are really going to sacrifice themselves on this hill. It's fucking beautiful. Now if we could only get TEAM RED to do the same over something...abortion?

[sarcasmic]

The look like the pair who were going around my college campus smooching and then writing in chalk "Two girls kissed here" on the concrete.

Losers.

[The Hammer]

Hey, attention-whoring is hard if you have to actually risk something! Much better to do it where they will be universally applauded and hailed as heroes without having to do anything uncomfortable! Also, were they hot?

[sarcasmic]

Also, were they hot?

I went to college in Portland Maine, so the answer is a definitive BARF!

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Geez, they were doing that in 1990. Nice to know some things never become unoriginal and uninspired.

[MikeP]

"corporations are not people and money is not free speech."

How about "people don't lose their rights when they form corporations and the right to free speech does not vanish simply because the speech was paid for." Is that close enough?

[sarcasmic]

Groups of people voluntarily pooling their resources for a common goal don't count.

It only counts when there's coercion involved.

Tony said so.

[R C Dean]

As iowahawk put it:

"Government" is just a word for the things we do together. "Corporation" is just a word for the things we do together voluntarily.

[Loki]

"Government" is just a word for the things we do together. "Corporation" is just a word for the things we do together voluntarily.

I might have to steal this.

[Zeb]

I've been saying all along that it would be much better to talk about this in terms of press rather than speech. "Press" does not mean the news media only. It is any form of mass communication. And pres always costs money. And is usually produced by corporations of one sort or another. So I'm willing to accept that "money is not speech". Speech is a person opening their mouth and talking. Press is just as protected as speech and spending money is often necessary to exercise press freedom.

But it seems to me that most people who are against Citizens United are either misinformed, stupid or don't care about facts that get in the way of their preferred narrative.

[Lost_In_Translation]

If someone gave them money to advertise against people giving them money to advertise on speicifc ideas, how much irony would be lost on them?

[R C Dean]

You don't think the rent-a-mob did this on their own nickel, do you?

The irony has already been lost on them. All of it.

[Tman]

What about the GOP's efforts to limit access to abortion in the event of rape or incest? Nope.

From the same article "Romney's campaign announced Sunday that the former Massachusetts governor would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."

That's a tad misleading. Yes, some Republicans would like to ban abortion altogether because they are fucking morons, but the party platform simply states that they don't want federal funds paying for abortion. Not to mention the Republican party nominee for president has specifically stated he would not oppose abortions in instances of rape.

[R C Dean]

What part of "cosmo narrative" don't you understand, Tman?

[Skip]

Its also the Left's narrative.

[Zeb]

This was the values voters summit. I bet there were a lot of vocal supporters of banning abortion outright there.

Also, they are talking about stupid leftist protesters, so it really doesn't matter if that is part of the Rep platform, it's what they think it is and would be likely to protest against..

[The Late P Brooks]

Somebody should approach Pink Floyd about using Money in Republican campaign ads.

[BakedPenguin]

Animals is more apropos for political campaigns.

[BakedPenguin]

It's amazing. For those of us here who are old enough to remember New Coke, that should be the final word on the subject of how much power advertising has. A company introduces a product that is very close to their old product, and advertises it heavily. The new produxt is rejected en masse by customers. One of the biggest, smartest marketers on the planet couldn't convince its customers to make a marginal change in their drinking habits, yet dildos like Chomsky, the Adbuster dicks, and these protestors claim they can brainwash people into acting against their own interests.

[Cyto]

money is not free speech

If that were the case, why would they be upset about rich individuals or companies spending money on political advertisements? They claim to be worried about how money "distorts the political process" and "drowns out the little guy".... well, how does money possibly do that except via speech?

If money was not free speech there would be no "threat" to the electoral process. The only legal way for money to affect voters is via speech (in all its varied forms).

[Loki]

EVUL KOCHPORASUNZ!!!111one!!!!eleven!!11!! are out to destroy demokrasee OMGZ!!!11!!

What a bunch of dipshits. Has it ever occured to any of these assclowns that they could just as easily get a bunch of their like minded comrades, and pool their resources together? That, boys and girls, is what we call a "corporation". If coroporations are deemed "not people" and money is deemed "not speech", then they wouldn't be allowed to do that either. Sometimes the so called cure is worse than the disease. Of course that would require them to be capable of rational thought.

[Zeb]

And what is with the "USA, USA" chanting? This isn't the fucking Olympics.

[mitch]

The "U-S-A" chant probably pisses off the lefty hecklers, either because the hecklers really hate the US or because they think the chant is impugning their patriotism. Also, a simple chant like that is easy to coordinate spontaneously. How quickly could you get people to chant, "Corporations are made up of people!" or "We don't surrender our First Amendment rights when we corporate!"?

[mitch]

"incorporate," I guess.

[John Thacker]

Funny thing is that big money is, if anything, on the side of gay marriage.

[Tom Beebe]

Try this:

No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributors to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate's name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

[Tom Beebe]

The intent of the above is to bring "transparency" to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or "special interests". It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from "special interest" groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their "special interest". The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.

To those advocating public financing I would suggest that with money comes control. Do we want government control of the electoral process? Are there problems with his proposal? Certainly; it is offered as an amendment to assure it will be thoroughly debated, for that is what the amendment process provides, and in recognition that it does indeed infringe on freedom of speech and of the press, two freedoms not to be compromised lightly.}