Law Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United

[Yehudim]

Really?

<Oku02><Oku02><Oku02>

Spoiler

 

[CatchnShoot]

Yep, it's an obviously good thing and should get bipartisan support..... so sure to not pass.

 

[Andy Capp]

That’s an awfully overused term straw man. We just had a pistol brace ruling that adversely affects the handicap. That might be one to start on.
The poors don’t need clean water here we have foreign wars to fund.
Just quote me in your new thread.

You're correct that it is a logical fallacy that appears abundantly on Sherdog so people point it out frequently as well. But that's not an argument.

 

[oldshadow]

I agree it has almost no chance as an amendment, but I think that's all we are left with.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I could definitely be wrong about this. But my take is that we already had different rules that limited corporate donations. And SCOTUS ruled them unconstitutional in Citizens United. Which leaves us trying to amend the constitution.

I suppose passing new legislation that did largely the same thing as the old legislation would give SCOTUS another chance to vote on the matter when it was inevitably challenged. I mean, this SCOTUS does not seem to mind taking a giant shit on previous SCOTUS rulings. But it was 5 conservative justices that gave Citizens United it's win, and opened this Pandoras box of corporate money. So I don't think we could expect anything different.

Yea but there might be a way of doing it but there is not enough support on both sides. It should cover all elections including state.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yea but there might be a way of doing it but there is not enough support on both sides. It should cover all elections including state.

There's near total support on one side and near total opposition on the other. Let's be honest here.

 

[ferrisjso]

Even if I still believed in represenative democracy this is a waste of time given the masive amount of resources that goes into a amendment and what the nominal change would be if said amendment was passed.. If we take out the Bill of Rights, the Civil War amendments(neither of which were adopted via the normal amendment process) and changes that had universial support the Constitution has only been successfully amended a handful of times. US was a one party state before 2010. Taking corporate money out of politics doesn't change that.

The focus should be on ending the American genocide and adopting single payer healthcare. Establishing education as a right. UBI. stuff like that. If Citizens United was reversed it would not fundamentally change much of anything.

 

[Whippy McGee]

There's near total support on one side and near total opposition on the other. Let's be honest here.

You're just a Democratic Party homer. Every honest poster on this board knows that.

Both parties suck. Neither party actually wants this as it would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This is a stunt, but I approve of the stunt to expose the Republicans for being just as corrupt on the matter. The GOP is full of shit on campaign $ and needs to be exposed.... so are the Democrats. In fact the Democrats get more of that corporate, union, foreign, special interest money than the Republicans.

We should all want all political money directly from a U.S. Citizens, and for it to be capped. Also, money should not go to a candidate or ballot measure from a citizen that is not directly geographically impacted. In other words no New York money in Oregon, or Texas money in New York.

Keep blowing your smoke jack. You're a Democratic Party homer.

 

[oldshadow]

There's near total support on one side and near total opposition on the other. Let's be honest here.

I would have to see the proposed bill and what was in it before I could judge. If it's a clean good bill I would speak our against anyone that apposed it.

 

[irish_thug]

I would have to see the proposed bill and what was in it before I could judge. If it's a clean good bill I would speak our against anyone that apposed it.

What are the vegas odds on that?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're just a Democratic Party homer. Every honest poster on this board knows that.

Both parties suck. Neither party actually wants this as it would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This is a stunt, but I approve of the stunt to expose the Republicans for being just as corrupt on the matter. The GOP is full of shit on campaign $ and needs to be exposed.... so are the Democrats. In fact the Democrats get more of that corporate, union, foreign, special interest money than the Republicans.

We should all want all political money directly from a U.S. Citizens, and for it to be capped. Also, money should not go to a candidate or ballot measure from a citizen that is not directly geographically impacted. In other words no New York money in Oregon, or Texas money in New York.

Keep blowing your smoke jack. You're a Democratic Party homer.

Well, personal attacks (and obvious projection) aside, what I said is indisputably true. It's not honest to present it as a bothsides thing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I would have to see the proposed bill and what was in it before I could judge. If it's a clean good bill I would speak our against anyone that apposed it.

 

[oldshadow]

What are the vegas odds on that?

Not something I would put money on.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I would have to see the proposed bill and what was in it before I could judge. If it's a clean good bill I would speak our against anyone that apposed it.

What are the vegas odds on that?

Not something I would put money on.

It’s a proposed amendment fellas. So, you know, it’s like one sentence long.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It’s a proposed amendment fellas. So, you know, it’s like one sentence long.

Just illustrates that there will always be an excuse. Don't know why more rightists don't just say what they really support. I get it at the politician/propagandist level, but I'm talking about regular people. I think it's a perfectly defensible view that people should have a right to donate as much money as they want to, and I think it's clearly true that it doesn't really matter much anyway.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Just illustrates that there will always be an excuse. Don't know why more rightists don't just say what they really support. I get it at the politician/propagandist level, but I'm talking about regular people. I think it's a perfectly defensible view that people should have a right to donate as much money as they want to, and I think it's clearly true that it doesn't really matter much anyway.

It is certainly defensible, but I do think it matters. Whether or not the largest sum of money determines an outcome, it is always a major influence. Even if the eventual winner of a given race received a lower amount in terms of donations, they still almost always received plenty, and have attained the position with a lot of donors to thank.
We now live in a world where huge sums of corporate money powers most campaigns, and candidates spend more time than I am personally comfortable with soliciting those funds and campaigning.
Anyway, corporate interests come down to a few decision makers, and whether their influence is just a perception in some cases, or a reality in others, I think it’s taking us in the wrong direction. And eroding faith in the process (the toothpaste is pretty much out of the tube on that, so maybe it’s a moot point).

 

[oldshadow]

It’s a proposed amendment fellas. So, you know, it’s like one sentence long.

An amendment is going no where. Do you realize what it takes to pass an amendment.

 

[UFCUCF]

If that happens, the GOP would have one less boogyman to bring up during campaign time.

That’s a pretty lame reason to oppose this legislation. Not that I think you are wrong…

 

[sickc0d3r]

An amendment is going no where. Do you realize what it takes to pass an amendment.

Yes, I do.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is certainly defensible, but I do think it matters. Whether or not the largest sum of money determines an outcome, it is always a major influence. Even if the eventual winner of a given race received a lower amount in terms of donations, they still almost always received plenty, and have attained the position with a lot of donors to thank.
We now live in a world where huge sums of corporate money powers most campaigns, and candidates spend more time than I am personally comfortable with soliciting those funds and campaigning.
Anyway, corporate interests come down to a few decision makers, and whether their influence is just a perception in some cases, or a reality in others, I think it’s taking us in the wrong direction. And eroding faith in the process (the toothpaste is pretty much out of the tube on that, so maybe it’s a moot point).

I don't think the evidence supports the claim that money beyond a very minimal level matters in elections, and I don't think the model of politicians being so grateful to people who helped them buy ads that they're going to feel obligated to change their positions on issues is plausible. I agree that a lot of time is wasted on fundraising (and I think at least 90% of money spent on political campaigns is wasted from a societal standpoint--not only because races are zero-sum).

So for those last two reasons, I'd be fine with some kind of limits. Maybe just a hard cap on what campaigns can take? That makes it hard for third parties, though. Maybe just a formal agreement between the major parties not to take more than a certain amount depending on the office? I dunno. I don't think it would actually do anything but given politicians more free time and infinitesimally help the economy. I doubt it would even help with perception, as I don't think there's much connection between perception and reality here.

 

[Prefect]

2 years in complete control and they put this forward now? Why do you keep falling for it?

Do you not realize what is needed to pass a constituional ammendment?

You're just a Democratic Party homer. Every honest poster on this board knows that.

Both parties suck. Neither party actually wants this as it would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This is a stunt, but I approve of the stunt to expose the Republicans for being just as corrupt on the matter. The GOP is full of shit on campaign $ and needs to be exposed.... so are the Democrats. In fact the Democrats get more of that corporate, union, foreign, special interest money than the Republicans.

We should all want all political money directly from a U.S. Citizens, and for it to be capped. Also, money should not go to a candidate or ballot measure from a citizen that is not directly geographically impacted. In other words no New York money in Oregon, or Texas money in New York.

Keep blowing your smoke jack. You're a Democratic Party homer.

Tell me why republican politicians don't want campaign donation reform? The answer is that many receive incredible funding from corporations for their campaigns. Democrats are not innocent in this but are perfectly willing to walk away from corporate influence for the greater good. Campaign financing is an arms race and is clear which side views themselves as being better at harvesting corporate donations.