Hey, both sides benefit from dark money
Let’s look at the facts without any political filters. Both sides use dark money and have benefited from it. …
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
freedom of speech, right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers).
Let’s look at the facts without any political filters. Both sides use dark money and have benefited from it. …
By learning the laws you will not be deceived by bad actors or oath-breakers …
At Bitesize you get quick legal info and assorted tibits to help you navigate through this era of fake news, defamation, oath-breaking, and political gamesmanship.
“We found it very hard to believe that it was actually true, that so many judges were breaking the law. I mean, these are judges.