• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanders/Citizen United Amendment Proposal

Money is simply property. That simple. Don't know what's so hard to understand about it. Buying influence isn't speech. It's throwing property around for favors.

You either entirely missed the point or refused to address it.
 
Citizens United has nothing to do with "one person, one vote".

Someone tell Bernie to quit talking like a potato head.

He with the money can buy his politico anytime he wants. And how does he do that and stay within the law, give millions in political campaign contributions which under Citizens is now legal. Since he who spends the most wins 91% of elections, you figure out who is winning and if Citizens United does not give the electoral process to the very wealthy. One man one vote, no, millions in contributions yes. And do you really think that the founding fathers meant for money to equal speech when they wrote the First Amendment. Or that corporations were people. If you do, then there is no way you will ever think differently.
 
He with the money can buy his politico anytime he wants. And how does he do that and stay within the law, give millions in political campaign contributions which under Citizens is now legal. Since he who spends the most wins 91% of elections, you figure out who is winning and if Citizens United does not give the electoral process to the very wealthy. One man one vote, no, millions in contributions yes. And do you really think that the founding fathers meant for money to equal speech when they wrote the First Amendment. Or that corporations were people. If you do, then there is no way you will ever think differently.

We've already seen how your argument is nonsense. Trump got elected President and he spent less than almost everyone who ran against him...both Republican and Democrat.

If your Party isn't listening to you, tell their chosen candidate to take a hike. You don't HAVE to nominate the person THEY choose.

But as long as the members of your Party are willing to let the Party have it's way...as long as the members of your Party is too lazy to tell your Elites to take a hike...you have no excuse for what they do. You allow it.

Your vote counts.
 
Yes, part of the problem of constructing an amendment is going to be crafting it so that it actually overturns Citizens United. If it does, then it's a slam-dunk partial repeal of the First Amendment.

No, it's not. For example, an Amendment that clarifies that Corporations are not "persons" for First Amendment purposes, affects who can spend money, but doesn't repeal anything of the First Amendment. There are a number of logical inconsistencies and constitutional infirmities in the Citizens United case itself that can be addressed directly. It is incredibly sketchy intellectually.
 
No, it's not. For example, an Amendment that clarifies that Corporations are not "persons" for First Amendment purposes, affects who can spend money, but doesn't repeal anything of the First Amendment. There are a number of logical inconsistencies and constitutional infirmities in the Citizens United case itself that can be addressed directly. It is incredibly sketchy intellectually.

Then it should be no problem for you to construct the language of an amendment. The floor is yours.
 
Then it should be no problem for you to construct the language of an amendment. The floor is yours.

If I get bored enough, I might. But, I discovered quite a few pages back that is not the real point of the thread, so probably not that bored. Hold your breath, though, just in case.
 
If I get bored enough, I might. But, I discovered quite a few pages back that is not the real point of the thread, so probably not that bored. Hold your breath, though, just in case.

No, that's very much the real point of this thread.

Can you do it, or not? It doesn't bode well if you're looking for excuses not to.
 
No, that's very much the real point of this thread.

Can you do it, or not? It doesn't bode well if you're looking for excuses not to.

Give me the day (I'm on vacation), and I'll have you a proposal.
 
I hate what CU does, I also do not believe that corporations are "people" in the same way humans are. Having said that I still can not find an acceptable way to restrict the the FA. It is one of the greatest freedoms we the people gave ourselves. Yet there has to be a way to negate the effects of such terrible influence and the only way I see that possible is to take away its effect and to do that legislation can be passed that guarantees to each and every candidate at every level equal or matching funding. That will result in candidates winning based on their message that will uniformly get spread and the big donnord will see diminished returns on their investments. Moreover, elected officials will not be beholden to their donors and they can concentrate on their message not on fund raising.
 
Give me the day (I'm on vacation), and I'll have you a proposal.

I'm still working on harshaw's challenge. My internet was down all day yesterday, and I'm posting this from my tablet via cell connection. I'm an ardent supporter of the First Amendment (and all of the Constitution), so I take that challenge seriously. I also believe that Citizens United is fundamentally wrong, but I won't be able to respond adequately until I can reliably reach my resources. To be continued.
 
He with the money can buy his politico anytime he wants. And how does he do that and stay within the law, give millions in political campaign contributions which under Citizens is now legal. Since he who spends the most wins 91% of elections, you figure out who is winning and if Citizens United does not give the electoral process to the very wealthy. One man one vote, no, millions in contributions yes. And do you really think that the founding fathers meant for money to equal speech when they wrote the First Amendment. Or that corporations were people. If you do, then there is no way you will ever think differently.

Of course they didn't, because corporations as they are currently conceived didn't exist until the close of the 19th century. Limited liability, for example, would not only have been completely alien to the founders (who operated within an economic system which was still largely mercantilist), they would have seen it as a gross abrogation of justice. Current corporate law began to arise at the state level near the turn of the 20th century, starting in Jersey and Delaware. States were trying to outdo one another in attracting outside investment, and so endowed incorporated companies with many, many advantages which they were never intended to have.
 
Back
Top Bottom