Law Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United

[Andy Capp]

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.

Sounds like you're saying the Republicans should call the Democrats' bluff so they're equally exposed, thus equally free of care. I can't speak for @Jack V Savage but it's my opinion we would both consider that a great idea.

 

[Andy Capp]

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


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.

Peripherally, in terms of which side we're talking about here, a case in point turns out to be the flood of money that turned up in the pockets of organizers of the so-called truckers protest in Ottawa, Canada. It's not a parallel situation, but the donations, their source, their reasons, are all the same.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sounds like you're saying the Republicans should call the Democrats' bluff so they're equally exposed, thus equally free of care. I can't speak for @Jack V Savage but it's my opinion we would both consider that a great idea.

I am pretty indifferent on the issue itself. But I think we should be honest, and of course Democrats support it and Republicans don't. Whippy and Shadow and everyone else trying to deny that fact are just showing that are totally immune to reality. I think Republicans should call it if they really believe what they're saying but there is no way they do so they won't.

 

[Andy Capp]

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.

Define "American genocide" for me, if you'd be so kind.

 

[ferrisjso]

Define "American genocide" for me, if you'd be so kind.

The existence of private health insurance and the murder of 68,000 innocent people a year.

 

[Strychnine]

corporations are people too. And George Santos is President and CEO.

George Santos also broke the CEO glass ceiling when they became the CEO of Apple and NASA at the same time.

 

[sickc0d3r]

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.

CU was all about a politically themed movie being made close to an election, wasn’t it? Seems like it should be fine to just say corporations are free to spend whatever the hell they want on movies or ads or whatever, regardless of any pending election, but candidates can’t be affiliated or solicit that kind of stuff. And, yeah, put a cap on campaign spending so everyone is on a level playing field in that regard. Maybe you’re right and it’s ultimately not a real problem, but giant sums of money from a small-ish segment of private donors, all mixed into politics, sure seems potentially counter to public interest.

 

[Andy Capp]

I am pretty indifferent on the issue itself. But I think we should be honest, and of course Democrats support it and Republicans don't. Whippy and Shadow and everyone else trying to deny that fact are just showing that are totally immune to reality. I think Republicans should call it if they really believe what they're saying but there is no way they do so they won't.

Of course, leaving aside the first sentence, that was my point. Democrats shine a bright spotlight on how gutless and money-driven Republican legislators are because they know Republicans will NEVER in a million years call them on it--so whether they secretly all love those Bennies or not, they're willing to put them to a vote anyway. It's not much different than pot legalization or other broadly popular measures in that regard. The pattern is clear and we can all see with our own eyes which US party has truly sold its soul to the moneyed class and which still harbours some measure of a desire for good governance.

There is more I could say here but I feel I would be preaching to the choir and flogging a dead horse at the same time.

 

[Andy Capp]

The existence of private health insurance and the murder of 68,000 innocent people a year.

I'm with you on the private health insurance thing--I'm Canadian--but to understand you fully I need more details on that latter part, please.

 

[ferrisjso]

I'm with you on the private health insurance thing--I'm Canadian--but to understand you fully I need more details on that latter part, please.

68,000 people annually die due to private health insurance companies rationing care.

 

[Andy Capp]

68,000 people annually die due to private health insurance companies rationing care.

That's a revolting statistic, no doubt about it.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Sounds like you're saying the Republicans should call the Democrats' bluff so they're equally exposed, thus equally free of care. I can't speak for @Jack V Savage but it's my opinion we would both consider that a great idea.

Yep. But, we know the Republicans are crooked, so it's not happening. If the roles were reversed, we'd see the same outcome.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yep. But, we know the Republicans are crooked, so it's not happening. If the roles were reversed, we'd see the same outcome.

So why don't we? Why don't the Republicans put it to a vote when they are in control of the House and see if we'd see the same outcome?

Take a wild fucking guess, you tool.

 

[emefer]

LOL at all the people in here scoffing at the Dems for putti

George Santos also broke the CEO glass ceiling.

is that the guy that carved Mount Rushmore with his bare hands?

 

[Deleted member 484047]

The only campaign donation laws that should exist would barr any non-singular individual from donating and then limit yearlydonations to a few thousand dollars total. No corporations, no unions, no special interest groups. No paid for by friends of ads, no 25000 dollar a plate dinners, no 100000 meet and greets. Make the politicians earn their donations and actually pay attention to the people instead of whomever bought them that week.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

So why don't we? Why don't the Republicans put it to a vote when they are in control of the House and see if we'd see the same outcome?

Take a wild fucking guess, you tool.

 

[Andy Capp]

#bothsidesmotherfucker

 

[Prefect]

I am pretty indifferent on the issue itself. But I think we should be honest, and of course Democrats support it and Republicans don't. Whippy and Shadow and everyone else trying to deny that fact are just showing that are totally immune to reality. I think Republicans should call it if they really believe what they're saying but there is no way they do so they won't.

It is lose lose for republicans. They either make it obvious the corporate stooges they are or they lose a lot of easy campaign donations from corporations. It appears to be that they don't care that everyone knows that they are in the pockets of corporations.

 

[panamaican]

Really? Don’t you think Stevens’s dissent has proven to be almost entirely accurate?

His opinion on what would happen might be right but that doesn't make the core opinion wrong.

The core opinion was that corporations are simply a reflection of the people who own the corporations and so they should have their right to free speech protected. That's true. If people have a problem with Citizens United, their problem is actually with how corporations are structured in the tax code and business law. But rather than address how we've structured corporate business, we want to strip people of their free speech because they've chosen to conduct business in a specific fashion.

 

[sickc0d3r]

His opinion on what would happen might be right but that doesn't make the core opinion wrong.

The core opinion was that corporations are simply a reflection of the people who own the corporations and so they should have their right to free speech protected. That's true. If people have a problem with Citizens United, their problem is actually with how corporations are structured in the tax code and business law. But rather than address how we've structured corporate business, we want to strip people of their free speech because they've chosen to conduct business in a specific fashion.

I agree owners of corporations should be free to spend whatever they want in support of a candidate.

The problem as I see it is that since the ruling we have candidates and super pacs working together, legally apparently, despite campaign finance laws. For example, candidates can’t solicit more than 5k or whatever per donor for their “official” campaign. But they are free to speak at a super pac convention (which has unlimited funding), coordinate with them, sign attendees of their own campaign functions on to the super pac’s email list, etc. Whether or not a candidate can do stuff like that has no bearing on the free speech of private citizens.

Maybe I’m misplacing some of the blame on the court’s decision, but this is what it seems to have led to. The case was only about spending on a film that was going to be released near an election. Is it possible that the ruling was too broad considering the issue, maybe?