Constitutional Amendment to Limit Corporate Spending On Elections. (legal, independent, free speech)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) is said to have opened the flood gates to undue corporate influence in elections, the Court found that corporations, unions and other organizations have a fundamental 1st Amendment right like any individual citizen.
So the question, would you support of oppose a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizen United?
The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) is said to have opened the flood gates to undue corporate influence in elections, the Court found that corporations, unions and other organizations have a fundamental 1st Amendment right like any individual citizen.
So the question, would you support of oppose a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizen United?
If the have the same fundamental right as a citizen, then they should only be able to contribute what an individual citizen does. Which according to my gazintoo's is a bit less than they contribute now.
If the have the same fundamental right as a citizen, then they should only be able to contribute what an individual citizen does. Which according to my gazintoo's is a bit less than they contribute now.
I disagree with campaign finance reform. I view it as a violation of Free Speech under the First Amendment. If both sides want to donate billions, let them. The voters vote, not corporations or unions.
If the have the same fundamental right as a citizen, then they should only be able to contribute what an individual citizen does. Which according to my gazintoo's is a bit less than they contribute now.
It is an interesting question, and that when I pose to the imminent house hold legal council, The Wife, gets me in a world of trouble. To me, the 1st Amendment allows the freedom of association, and to my thinking a corporation is a freely formed association that has the right to express an unfettered opinion. After all media outlets as corporations have every right to express a particular political opinion, so why shouldn't other corporations? She disagrees quoting a string of legal precedents and legal reasoning which always leaves me on the losing end of the conversation. So in recognition of the inherent imbalance that corporations bring to the issue, I believe that a constitutional amendment would be the sole and proper way to limit such speech. If any of that makes sense ( I need to get some sleep).
I disagree with campaign finance reform. I view it as a violation of Free Speech under the First Amendment. If both sides want to donate billions, let them. The voters vote, not corporations or unions.
As much as I hate it, I tend to agree. Just don't tell my wife. But having said that, I would vote for an amendment limiting such speech.
Corporations are not citizens. They should have no say in government and should be disallowed from contributing to or creating elective campaigns. This is a nation of HUMANS, not manufactured legal entities posing as citizens that feel entitled to free speech.
I think only private citizens should be aloud to donate. I think when a corporation does it, it amounts to nothing more or less than bribery. The only reason they would give money to a pol is to get preferential treatment. That why when Reps are expected to win they get the money, when Dems are expected to win, they get the big money. Check out Wall St. spending between 2008 and 2010.
Corporations are not citizens. They should have no say in government and should be disallowed from contributing to or creating elective campaigns. This is a nation of HUMANS, not manufactured legal entities posing as citizens that feel entitled to free speech.
I agree with that too. I'm so confused!
(Then go to bed you idiot - note to mods: that was a personal attack directed at myself)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But having said that, I would vote for an amendment limiting such speech.
