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.
Rep. Adam Schiff introduced a constitutional amendment on Wednesday aimed at overturning The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling. The amendment would allow Congress and the states to put limits on campaign contributions. It would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns.
Quote:
"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement.
"Amending the Constitution is an extraordinary step, but it is the only way to safeguard our democratic process against the threat of unrestrained and anonymous spending by wealthy individuals and corporations," he added. "This amendment will restore power to everyday citizens."
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,088,442 times
Reputation: 15538
I agree with limiting corporate sponsorship but I do not agree with public financing either, we pay enough taxes without it being contributed to the millionaires who want to run for office. Also based on the bias demonstrated in the last Presidential Election can we really trust the party leaderships to be even handed on how funding is distributed?
Politics in any Western-style democracy always breaks down to a struggle between those with resources --sometimes inherited, sometimes earned, and often merely managed via the non-profit sector, and those with "the numbers" -- often stoked with watery sentiment, appeals to largely-imaginary class warfare and/or economic ignorance.
The OP is just one more foot-soldier in this battle -- as am I; she has a right to her opinion, and by constitutional means, to re-write the rulebook in favor of her allies; but so do the rest of us. And the Founding Fathers designed our Constitution to prevent "rule by the people' from devolving into "rule by the mob". We have a 225+-year history of the gradual enlargement of the electorate and sharing of power, but recent shifts, particularly via the encouragement of illegal immigration by some of the folks over there on the Left side of the aisle, have put that process in jeopardy.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-09-2019 at 10:19 AM..
Politics in any Western-style democracy always breaks down to a struggle between those with resources --sometimes inherited, sometimes earned, and often merely managed via the non-profit sector, and those with "the numbers" -- often stoked with watery sentiment, appeals to largely-imaginary class warfare and/or economic ignorance.
The OP is just one more foot-soldier in this battle -- as am I; she has a right to her opinion, and by constitutional means, to re-write the rulebook in favor of her allies; but so do the rest of us. And the Founding Fathers designed our Constitution to prevent "rule by the people' from devolving into "rule by the mob". We have a 225+-year history of the gradual enlargement of the electorate and sharing of power, but recent shifts, particularly via the encouragement of illegal immigration by some of the folks over there on the Left side of the aisle, have put that process in jeopardy.
My "allies" are the American people, whose voices are drown out by the influx of big money in politics. Which is what CU is all about--giving deep pocket corporations and organizations an outsized influence in our government. I would think they would be your allies, too.
Citizens United never made sense to me. They are allowed personhood for political means, but in no other way is considered or treated as a person by the law.
That is some Red pill / Blue pill Matrix stuff right there.
It needs to go, it serves no political party, voters, or the public. It only serves a corporation's interest which is amazing because again I thought a corporation was not a person, but it is politically. Damn Matrix again.
Politics in any Western-style democracy always breaks down to a struggle between those with resources --sometimes inherited, sometimes earned, and often merely managed via the non-profit sector, and those with "the numbers" -- often stoked with watery sentiment, appeals to largely-imaginary class warfare and/or economic ignorance.
The OP is just one more foot-soldier in this battle -- as am I; she has a right to her opinion, and by constitutional means, to re-write the rulebook in favor of her allies; but so do the rest of us. And the Founding Fathers designed our Constitution to prevent "rule by the people' from devolving into "rule by the mob". We have a 225+-year history of the gradual enlargement of the electorate and sharing of power, but recent shifts, particularly via the encouragement of illegal immigration by some of the folks over there on the Left side of the aisle, have put that process in jeopardy.
Currently we have the opposite, at least on the federal level.
Rule by oligarchs who buy the laws they want.
Would love to see a narrower version of this amendment without the pulbic financing end.
The premise that a State-created entity designed to allow groups of individuals to take commercial risks without exposing themselves to personal liability is somehow a "person" with Constitutional rights is beyond absurd. This is an Amendment that everyone except the kleptocratic class should embrace.
I would love to see corporations kept from buying elections. My issue is that this is ShiFty Schiff trying to get a constitutional amendment through congress and the wh.
That's like trying to push a camel through the eye of a needle.
Rep. Adam Schiff introduced a constitutional amendment on Wednesday aimed at overturning The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling. The amendment would allow Congress and the states to put limits on campaign contributions. It would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns.
Who would be against this?
Everyone with any interest in human freedom. The point of the legislation is to increase the power of the mainstream mass media, which already exerts an influence on our political landscape that is 10 times greater than everything else combined, and which (it should be pointed out) consists of corporations that are accorded the same First Amendment rights as natural persons. Did you ever think of that? Your argument against CU implies that Congress can shut down your precious media/propaganda outlets.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 05-09-2019 at 01:09 PM..
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.
