Sanders/Citizen United Amendment Proposal

[jmotivator]

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.

In a representative government there is FAR more evidence of illegal immigration limiting my vote than there is of corporate donations.

Hillary Clinton outspent Trump by a wide margin and lost the majority of state elections.

Illegal Immigration, on the other hand, is responsible for the apportionment of at least 17 House Reps and 17 Electoral College votes. The latter directly impacts a citizen's vote.

 

[Harshaw]

By that logic, all laws limiting campaign donations are unconstitutional.

They are, up to the point where it becomes tantamount to bribery. That's the only construct upon which limits are permissible.

 

[Mircea]

This does not overturn Citizens United, because Citizens United was not about campaign donations, nor raising nor disbursing campaign funds.

Perhaps you want to have someone read the US Supreme Court decision to you, because you obviously missed this:

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.

Then perhaps you'll want to study the US Supreme Court's legal definition of goods or services in kind, which is a payment, distribution, or substitution of goods or services in lieu of money. Creating a film, documentary or commercial advertisement in support of a candidate or ballot issue is the same as contributing money to a campaign or ballot issue. The fact that the film, documentary or commercial advertisement was created or produced without the knowledge or consent of the candidate, or without the candidate's blessing and support, or wasn't handed over to the candidate is not relevant.

When you have experience drafting treaties, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and drafting legislation for the federal government or States, or extensively reviewed such documents expressly to examine their statutory construction, you will understand.

 

[Harshaw]

Perhaps you want to have someone read the US Supreme Court decision to you, because you obviously missed this:

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.

I will repeat what I said:

This does not overturn Citizens United, because Citizens United was not about campaign donations, nor raising nor disbursing campaign funds.

Citizens United had to do with independent expenditures NOT given to any campaign, or received from any campaign, specifically, Citizens United using its own funds to make its own film critical of Hillary Clinton, which was not on the behalf of any candidate or campaign, so it was not even an in-kind contribution. In-kind contributions were not even mentioned in the decision.

NOTHING you wrote in your amendment overturns Citizens United.

When you have experience drafting treaties, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and drafting legislation for the federal government or States, or extensively reviewed such documents expressly to examine their statutory construction, you will understand.

You sound like people who claim that what astrophysicists have to say about the Twin Towers falling is somehow dispositive. You can draft treaties and agreements all day long; it gives you no expertise in constitutional law, and you're still factually wrong about this.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

An amendment to repeal the CU decision. No more, no less.

 

[Harshaw]

An amendment to repeal the CU decision. No more, no less.

Which would say what?

 

[Dittohead not!]

They are, up to the point where it becomes tantamount to bribery. That's the only construct upon which limits are permissible.

Yes, and yet a candidate needs millions to run, hundreds of millions to run for president. The contributions that the candidate needs in order to win may or may not be considered "bribery," but they certainly do give the donor leverage over the candidate once elected, unless, of course, that politician has not intention of running again.

Want to get re elected? Take this donation, but you have to vote our way, or your opponent gets it. That's how money corrupt politics.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, and yet a candidate needs millions to run, hundreds of millions to run for president. The contributions that the candidate needs in order to win may or may not be considered "bribery," but they certainly do give the donor leverage over the candidate once elected, unless, of course, that politician has not intention of running again.

Want to get re elected? Take this donation, but you have to vote our way, or your opponent gets it. That's how money corrupt politics.

OK. That's a tangent.

 

[Evilroddy]

Citizens United had to do with independent expenditures NOT given to any campaign, or received from any campaign, specifically, Citizens United using its own funds to make its own film critical of Hillary Clinton, which was not on the behalf of any candidate or campaign, so it was not even an in-kind contribution. In-kind contributions were not even mentioned in the decision.

Harshaw:

If the film about Mrs. Clinton was purposely critical of her record and character and if its release date was timed to happen 30 days before the election then does that not mean that such a film was intended to sway the nomination and voting process? If it was and the film was designed to harm Mrs. Clinton's public image then it was also designed to improve the chances of her rival candidates winning and thus was an effective endorsement. Thus it was a back-door boon to all candidates running against her. The intent was to affect the outcome of a political process by hurting Mrs. Clinton's public persona and thus was an de facto endorsement of all other candidates as an anybody-but-Clinton public relations vehicle. Thus it seems pretty clear that the film was designed to help the campaigns of all her opponents and thus was a de facto endorsement of them all but Mrs. Clinton (anybody-but-Clinton). Having read both the Majority and Minority opinions and Justice Thomas' variation on a theme I was struck by what I saw as tortured legal logic and legal gymnastics. I think the decision was more of an after-the-fact justification to reassert monied interests ability to interfere in a democratic process than a sound defence of democratic and constitutional principles. The partisan nature of the 5-4 decision reinforces my suspicions.

Corporations and other legal persons already had a route for the spending of money in order to affect and effect the political process through political action committees. Why did they need more latitude to affect, effect and quite possibly corrupt future elections? I don't see the logic of the decision in a democracy event if that democracy is a representative democracy and a republic. To me this seems like legitimising possible political corruption and thus the spending of money by legal persons which are legal fictions for the purposes of swaying electoral results should not be protected speech because it poses a real threat of harming democracy and in the long-run harming the principles upon which the American republic was built. "We the People ...". Not we the Bank-notes.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Harshaw]

Harshaw:

If the film about Mrs. Clinton was purposely critical of her record and character and if its release date was timed to happen 30 days before the election then does that not mean that such a film was intended to sway the nomination and voting process? If it was and the film was designed to harm Mrs. Clinton's public image then it was also designed to improve the chances of her rival candidates winning and thus was an effective endorsement. Thus it was a back-door boon to all candidates running against her. The intent was to affect the outcome of a political process by hurting Mrs. Clinton's public persona and thus was an de facto endorsement of all other candidates as an anybody-but-Clinton public relations vehicle. Thus it seems pretty clear that the film was designed to help the campaigns of all her opponents and thus was a de facto endorsement of them all but Mrs. Clinton (anybody-but-Clinton). Having read both the Majority and Minority opinions and Justice Thomas' variation on a theme I was struck by what I saw as tortured legal logic and legal gymnastics. I think the decision was more of an after-the-fact justification to reassert monied interests ability to interfere in a democratic process than a sound defence of democratic and constitutional principles. The partisan nature of the 5-4 decision reinforces my suspicions.

Corporations and other legal persons already had a route for the spending of money in order to affect and effect the political process through political action committees. Why did they need more latitude to affect, effect and quite possibly corrupt future elections? I don't see the logic of the decision in a democracy event if that democracy is a representative democracy and a republic. To me this seems like legitimising possible political corruption and thus the spending of money by legal persons which are legal fictions for the purposes of swaying electoral results should not be protected speech because it poses a real threat of harming democracy and in the long-run harming the principles upon which the American republic was built. "We the People ...". Not we the Bank-notes.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

It was not an in-kind contribution to any campaign, any more than Fahrenheit 911 was, or any news editorial.

More importantly, it was not treated as such by the Citizens United Court and such did not factor into the ruling, so measures taken against in-kind contributions do not overturn the decision.

 

[MauiMan]

A better amendment would be to create term limits for members of Congress. I’m sure Senator Sanders can support that one.

 

[Terryj]

So if you and I were running for a local position in our local government in a town of eleven people and you got six votes and I got five and won, you wouldn't mind?

What you fail to understand, is the POTUS is the only elected office elected by indirect voting. All of your local government is elected via popular vote, you State government is elected via popular vote, your Fed. Senators and Representatives are elected via popular vote. So your statement is a fallacy.

 

[Mircea]

A better amendment would be to create term limits for members of Congress.

That would be an admission that democracy is a failure.

You can eliminate pensions and benefits for Congress members, and limit their pay to the annual pay as reported in the Social Security Wage Index.

If Congress members don't get a pension, then there's little reason to be a career politician in Congress.

NOTHING you wrote in your amendment overturns Citizens United.

You don't understand statutory construction.

 

[Harshaw]

You don't understand statutory construction.

This is not a response to word of what I said.

(And yes, I very much do.)

 

[Thoreau72]

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.

My plan has long been to allow anybody including corporations to contribute as they please to the political party. Individuals suffer no tax event for such a contribution, but corporations that contribute will pay a very high tax on such a contribution.

 

[Harshaw]

My plan has long been to allow anybody including corporations to contribute as they please to the political party. Individuals suffer no tax event for such a contribution, but corporations that contribute will pay a very high tax on such a contribution.

. . . which would not affect the Citizens United ruling at all.

 

[Mircea]

This is not a response to word of what I said.

(And yes, I very much do.)

No, you don't, because statutory construction is how all laws, whether in the Constitution or the Amendments, or enacted by any government or government agency are interpreted.

 

[Harshaw]

statutory construction is how all laws, whether in the Constitution or the Amendments, or enacted by any government or government agency are interpreted.

I agree. So what?

 

[Mr Person]

Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.

Amendment: Political donations of any kind are not speech and are not related to speech.

See.... the trouble is that the question is loaded. If one insists money is speech or is related to it by way of enabling it, one can easily challenge others as you did. After all, all you have to do is say "no, money is in X relation to speech" and then you can say whatever they said partially repeals the 1st. But money's relation to the 1st Amd. is not required by the constitution. That's how they interpreted it, and they wouldn't have to interpret if the constitution was explicit on the question, which is a necessary condition for you proclaiming that X amendment "partially repeal[ed]" the 1st Amd.

I'm not going to spend hours and hours refreshing my recollection on the last 100 years of 1st Amd. jurisprudence relative to expenditure of money in political donations as political speech. It is always possible there are decisions I haven't read or had reason to touch about some other use of money is speech in some other context. Don't know, don't care.

You asked for an amendment, there it is. All it has to do is say that expenditure of money has no relation to speech for purposes of interpreteting the 1st Amd, and we're done.


Collateral consequences? Yeah, I'm sure. Not saying I'd approve of such an absolute amendment. But why is it impossible absent a necessary assumption about a direct relation between speech and money?

 

[Mr Person]

That would be an admission that democracy is a failure.

You can eliminate pensions and benefits for Congress members, and limit their pay to the annual pay as reported in the Social Security Wage Index.

If Congress members don't get a pension, then there's little reason to be a career politician in Congress.

<snip quote>

You don't understand statutory construction.

This is not a response to word of what I said.

(And yes, I very much do.)

No, you don't, because statutory construction is how all laws, whether in the Constitution or the Amendments, or enacted by any government or government agency are interpreted.

No, you don't, because statutory construction is how all laws, whether in the Constitution or the Amendments, or enacted by any government or government agency are interpreted.

In what sense?

I mean, it's been quite a long time since I so much as skimmed the decision, but how is it just about statutory construction alone?

If memory serves - and it may not - one of or the linchpin(s) to the case was whether or not X amount of money or Y use of money leads to an "appearance of, quid pro quo corruption." That's a finding you might be able to tweak with a statute. Or maybe not. It was a 1st Amd. decision, too. No? Am I insane?

 

[Mircea]

What you fail to understand, is the POTUS is the only elected office elected by indirect voting.

So?

Do you not understand federalism?

A federation is a power-sharing arrangement between sovereign States and a central government.

A unitary State is a power-sharing arrangement between the people and a central government.

A unitary State is successful if and only if it has a homogeneous population.

The US was never homogeneous. Even before Europeans, who are not homogeneous, arrived, you had 567 different tribal groups, each with their own language, their own shared history, their own mythologies, their own gods, their own heroes and their own oral traditions.

Since a unitary State could never work, that leaves only a confederation, which was tried and failed, and a federation.

So, you have 50 sovereign countries, and a federal government, and under your framework, those 50 sovereign countries agreed to forfeit certain powers inherent to a sovereign State in order to speak as one voice, namely, the power to print money, the power to declare war, the power to engage in diplomacy and the power to enter into treaties and agreements.

Even so, the Senate was created specifically to represent the sovereign States, which is why the Senate and only the Senate can ratify treaties, and why consent of the Senate is required in addition to the consent of the House to declare war.

In what sense?

I mean, it's been quite a long time since I so much as skimmed the decision, but how is it just about statutory construction alone?

Well, some people are verbally and mentally limited. They think a statute must be worded in the exact way they believe it should be worded in order to be effective.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Does the Constitution expressly forbid the government from creating a State religion? I mean, does it say, "The government shall not create a State religion"?

No, but that's exactly the effect achieved by the statutory construction of the 1st Amendment.

You don't have to list or identify every possible vehicle by name if you want to ban them from a certain area, you can just say "motorized vehicles" and be done with it.

Likewise, you don't have to list every possible action a corporation could take in order to bar it from taking those actions.

 

[Mr Person]

Well, some people are verbally and mentally limited. They think a statute must be worded in the exact way they believe it should be worded in order to be effective.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Does the Constitution expressly forbid the government from creating a State religion? I mean, does it say, "The government shall not create a State religion"?

No, but that's exactly the effect achieved by the statutory construction of the 1st Amendment.

You don't have to list or identify every possible vehicle by name if you want to ban them from a certain area, you can just say "motorized vehicles" and be done with it.

Likewise, you don't have to list every possible action a corporation could take in order to bar it from taking those actions.

I likely know far more about how statutory construction works than you. I asked you to clarify your position.

But I really don't have the patience for smug superior-sounding piffle right now.

 

[Dittohead not!]

OK. That's a tangent.

It's a description of how money corrupts politics, which is what Citizens United is all about. It puts more money into politics, where there needs to be less.

 

[Harshaw]

It's a description of how money corrupts politics, which is what Citizens United is all about.

Citizens United isn't about that.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Citizens United isn't about that.

Citizens United isn't about money in politics? Really?