• 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

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:

9 years ago the disastrous Citizens United decision opened the door for billionaires and corporate interests to buy our elections.

To restore our one person, one vote democracy, we must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and stop the slide to oligarchy.

Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

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

We don't have a one person one vote democracy anyway. If we did, hillary would be president.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

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

Citizens United has nothing to do with "one person, one vote".

Someone tell Bernie to quit talking like a potato head.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

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

Money talks, but the First Amendment has to do with human free speech, not inanimate objects' free speech. What the amendment has to say is that money is not speech.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

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

LOL sanders and his amendments lmao.
 
We don't have a one person one vote democracy anyway. If we did, hillary would be president.

sure we have one person one vote.

the issue is that we are technically a Unification of STates. each state being it's own individual self governing body.
this goes back to civics 101.

the federal government was designed to be a forum for those states to pass and construction laws.
it was not meant to be as big or powerful as it is.

the election process allows 1 vote 1 person for that state to select who they want as president.
this process gives all people in all states a voice in the election.

now if you have an issue on how your state divides up their delegates then you need to petition your state government
to do it differently.
 
Money talks, but the First Amendment has to do with human free speech, not inanimate objects' free speech. What the amendment has to say is that money is not speech.

actually it covers printed speech long with other forms of non-verbal speech.
 
Money talks, but the First Amendment has to do with human free speech, not inanimate objects' free speech. What the amendment has to say is that money is not speech.

Before I comment on that, you'd have to give me actual wording, because "money is not speech" can mean a great many things.

Or, if that is your intended wording, then no law limiting expenditures related to speech/press would be unconstitutional, and the only thing the First Amendment would continue to protect would be standing in public and talking, because anything else requires expenditures.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

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

Bernie Sanders is a very confused man. The Citizens United v. FEC decision simply held that the FEC could not bar (or limit) the independent political speech of anyone (individual or group). The FEC can (and does) require disclodure of the sponsrship of such political speech.

In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President.

The federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the United States Constitution.

The court upheld requirements, however, for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The moronic nature of a law limiting speaking to an audience of over 50K people (potentially anyone on the internet?) about political candidates (ceratainly the MSM does so on a regular basis) was so obviously unconstituional that I am shocked that it took so long to overturn it. I guess the legal hurdle was simply to gain 'standing'.
 
Bernie Sanders is a very confused man. The Citizens United v. FEC decision simply held that the FEC could not bar (or limit) the independent political speech of anyone (individual or group). The FEC can (and does) require disclodure of the sponsrship of such political speech.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The moronic nature of a law limiting speaking to an audience of over 50K people (potentially anyone on the internet?) about political candidates (ceratainly the MSM does so on a regular basis) was so obviously unconstituional that I am shocked that it took so long to overturn it. I guess the legal hurdle was simply to gain 'standing'.

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.
 
Weird seeing people who swear they voted for Trump because he was going to 'drain the swamp' and because they were sick seeing both parties being bought and paid for by the rich, and big business, and they were sick of 'politics as usual', but they defend and support citizens united.

They show up in these threads and simply because of 'politics' they defend the 1 decision that may have done more to fill the swamp and get more big business money into politics than anything else.
 
sure we have one person one vote.

the issue is that we are technically a Unification of STates. each state being it's own individual self governing body.
this goes back to civics 101.

the federal government was designed to be a forum for those states to pass and construction laws.
it was not meant to be as big or powerful as it is.

the election process allows 1 vote 1 person for that state to select who they want as president.
this process gives all people in all states a voice in the election.

now if you have an issue on how your state divides up their delegates then you need to petition your state government
to do it differently.

Actually I do have an issue with that. One vote one person is deceptive. Sure we get to vote and then along the line other factors step in to negate your one vote. I suggest when we have a presidential election it is exactly that, one person, one vote. Add the votes together nationwide and the person with the most votes wins. Not a delegate vote to swing a state, not a electoral college decision, not a supreme court decision. A one person, one vote decision.
 
Weird seeing people who swear they voted for Trump because he was going to 'drain the swamp' and because they were sick seeing both parties being bought and paid for by the rich, and big business, and they were sick of 'politics as usual', but they defend and support citizens united.

They show up in these threads and simply because of 'politics' they defend the 1 decision that may have done more to fill the swamp and get more big business money into politics than anything else.

I didn't vote for Trump.

If you'd like to take a stab an at amendment, please do. Simply bitching about Citizens United is not that.
 
Actually I do have an issue with that. One vote one person is deceptive. Sure we get to vote and then along the line other factors step in to negate your one vote. I suggest when we have a presidential election it is exactly that, one person, one vote. Add the votes together nationwide and the person with the most votes wins. Not a delegate vote to swing a state, not a electoral college decision, not a supreme court decision. A one person, one vote decision.

Nothing negates your vote unless you live in an area where people don't know how to count votes or can't count votes properly.
No we are not a nation wide popular vote.

So what you are saying is you don't want people who you don't agree with to have a voice.
you basically want a mob rule philosophy and screw people that don't think you do.

yes i have a problem with that.
 
Nothing negates your vote unless you live in an area where people don't know how to count votes or can't count votes properly.
No we are not a nation wide popular vote.

So what you are saying is you don't want people who you don't agree with to have a voice.
you basically want a mob rule philosophy and screw people that don't think you do.

yes i have a problem with that.

Nice job, you twisted that into a pretzel. Let's say there's a hundred and one people voting, like the dalmations. You get fifty one votes, I get fifty. You win. That's my point in a nutshell if it were truly one person, one vote. The truth is the republican party is a minority in america and they know it. That's why the one person one vote doesn't work for them.
 
Nice job, you twisted that into a pretzel. Let's say there's a hundred and one people voting, like the dalmations. You get fifty one votes, I get fifty. You win. That's my point in a nutshell if it were truly one person, one vote. The truth is the republican party is a minority in america and they know it. That's why the one person one vote doesn't work for them.

Well you do win in your state. You get to decide what your state does.
you don't get to decide what people in another state do.

again this goes back to civics 101.

your paint brush fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
 
Well you do win in your state. You get to decide what your state does.
you don't get to decide what people in another state do.

again this goes back to civics 101.

your paint brush fallacies are fallacies for a reason.

Right I do get to win in my state receiving less votes than you, that's florida for ya'. Along with a whole bunch of other states where the party receiving less votes wins more seats. Is that using W's fuzzy math or his brother Jeb's common core math? I'm just asking because I understand neither.
 
Right I do get to win in my state receiving less votes than you, that's florida for ya'. Along with a whole bunch of other states where the party receiving less votes wins more seats. Is that using W's fuzzy math or his brother Jeb's common core math? I'm just asking because I understand neither.

just more nonsense.
and lack of political knowledge.

no 2 districts are the same size with same population.
nor are any districts the same philosophically.

so you don't win by receiving less votes. that is just nonsense.
 
just more nonsense.
and lack of political knowledge.

no 2 districts are the same size with same population.
nor are any districts the same philosophically.

so you don't win by receiving less votes. that is just nonsense.

Is it? We had a vote a few years back on an issue in florida. Fifty nine percent for, forty one percent against. The forty one percent won.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

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

Harshaw:

1) Limit all rights in the US Constitution to real persons (human beings) by default and then extend those protections as necessary to legal persons like corporations, organisations, unions and governments.

2) Clarify explicitly by statute that money and the ability to spend it is not free speech and thus not protected by the First Amendment.

3) Pass an amendment to the US Constitution making it legal to campaign and spend money on elections/nominations only 120 or 90 days before the actual election or nomination voting day(s) in any public spaces, including public communications spaces (real and virtual) the Internet, private places where the public has regular access (malls, stores, theatres, etc.). Private homes, either owned or rented, would be exempt from these limitations however unless they are being used by third parties or candidates to circumvent the new rules. This applies to candidates, political parties, political action committees, and all "interested parties" in the electoral process.

4) Pass laws and if necessary a constitutional amendment putting a cap on campaign spending which limits the upper limit for the amount of money each candidate can spend and delineates precisely what goods, services and other activities must be accounted towards that limit if a campaign uses them. If it is unclear whether an action is legal and accountable or not, then a candidate is not allowed to do it until it is approved by an election review board for the next election.

5) Make it a felony for any candidate or interested party to coerce or compel someone to "volunteer" to work for a political campaign against their will.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of real persons, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble in person in public spaces or virtually in electronic spaces, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech shall not be deemed to be money or the expenditure of money for the purpose of conducting a political campaign or public relations campaign in conjunction with a political campaign, either directly as a candidate or party or indirectly as an agent or other interested party on behalf of a candidate or party.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw:

1) Limit all rights in the US Constitution to real persons (human beings) by default and then extend those protections as necessary to legal persons like corporations, organisations, unions and governments.

2) Clarify explicitly by statute that money and the ability to spend it is not free speech and thus not protected by the First Amendment.

3) Pass an amendment to the US Constitution making it legal to campaign and spend money on elections/nominations only 120 or 90 days before the actual election or nomination voting day(s) in any public spaces, including public communications spaces (real and virtual) the Internet, private places where the public has regular access (malls, stores, theatres, etc.). Private homes, either owned or rented, would be exempt from these limitations however unless they are being used by third parties or candidates to circumvent the new rules. This applies to candidates, political parties, political action committees, and all "interested parties" in the electoral process.

4) Pass laws and if necessary a constitutional amendment putting a cap on campaign spending which limits the upper limit for the amount of money each candidate can spend and delineates precisely what goods, services and other activities must be accounted towards that limit if a campaign uses them. If it is unclear whether an action is legal and accountable or not, then a candidate is not allowed to do it until it is approved by an election review board for the next election.

5) Make it a felony for any candidate or interested party to coerce or compel someone to "volunteer" to work for a political campaign against their will.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Thank you.

Well, little in there would actually overturn Citizens United.

1) The case did not turn on the idea that "corporations are people" and in any event, by the reasoning of the case, it would be "necessary to extend it to legal persons."

2) Statutory limitations such as this violate the First Amendment. This would have no effect on Citizens United.

3) The anti-Hillary film in question was to be broadcast within 90-120 days of the election.

4) It was not produced by a candidate, but by Citizens United, an independent organization.

5) I don't have any idea where this comes from.



It also partially repeals the First Amendment because:

1) You already say you're "limiting" rights.

2) I explained in post #8 why declaring "money is not speech," even if it's in the form of an amendment, and not just a statute, guts the First Amendment:

Or, if that is your intended wording, then no law limiting expenditures related to speech/press would be unconstitutional, and the only thing the First Amendment would continue to protect would be standing in public and talking, because anything else requires expenditures.

Simply put, under this construct, limiting expenditures on any speech or press whatsoever to $0 would be constitutional. What good is freedom of the press if you can't buy ink or paper?

3) Completely preventing political speech except within a narrow window of time is absolutely a partial repeal of the First Amendment, no question whatsoever about it.

4) This, too, placing subject-matter and physical limits on speech, is blatantly a partial repeal of the First Amendment.

5) Again, I have no idea what this is supposed to address.
 
Last edited:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of real persons, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble in person in public spaces or virtually in electronic spaces, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech shall not be deemed to be money or the expenditure of money for the purpose of conducting a political campaign or public relations campaign in conjunction with a political campaign, either directly as a candidate or party or indirectly as an agent or other interested party on behalf of a candidate or party.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

This, on its face, is a partial repeal of the First Amendment, seeing as you're purposely placing limits directly within the First Amendment. But thank you for putting actual words to it, as you're the only one so far to do it.
 
Is it? We had a vote a few years back on an issue in florida. Fifty nine percent for, forty one percent against. The forty one percent won.

what vote was that?
 
Back
Top Bottom