SHould we pass a amendment to curb the excesses of Citizens United? (1 Viewer)

[independentusa]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

 

[JMB802]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

We need campaign finance reform, without a doubt. Most of the current crop in Congress would oppose it.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

republicans won't have it, so its pointless. they like power, enriching themselves, and they work for the wealthy. so won't happen anytime soon unless dems get super majority and can actually pass useful legislation

 

[ttwtt78640]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

Why should the FEC (or any government agency) have any say in which groups (or corporations) can (or can’t) engage in “political speech” (CU was about releasing an anti-Hillary movie) within 30 to 60 days of a federal election? If “news” corporations are allowed to do so then why not others?

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

 

[Slartibartfast]

The real issue with citizens united though is how it killed transparency in how ads are paid for, which has allowed money to flow into our elections from other countries.

 

[Crovax]

The real issue with citizens united though is how it killed transparency in how ads are paid for, which has allowed money to flow into our elections from other countries.

That's certainly an issue, but how do you stop it and still protect the citizens ability to exercise their political expression without repercussions?

Also playing devils advocate here why is external influence negative? Liberals (and conservatives) spend massive amounts every year outside their own jurisdictions to influence policy. Why should a New Yorker have any influence over Texas elections anymore than Germany having influence over US elections?

 

[Mycroft]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

The only thing I would support is full disclosure of who contributes, who they contribute to and how much.

Anything else is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Now...after the disclosure is enacted, it'll be up to the voters to look at who they are voting for and who is paying them.

btw, neither the Republicans or Democrats in Congress want full disclosure. It doesn't benefit them and they don't care if it benefits the voters.

 

[Deuce]

That's certainly an issue, but how do you stop it and still protect the citizens ability to exercise their political expression without repercussions?

Also playing devils advocate here why is external influence negative? Liberals (and conservatives) spend massive amounts every year outside their own jurisdictions to influence policy. Why should a New Yorker have any influence over Texas elections anymore than Germany having influence over US elections?

Devil's advocate or Putin's advocate?

 

[Mach]

Why should the FEC (or any government agency) have any say in which groups (or corporations) can (or can’t) engage in “political speech” (CU was about releasing an anti-Hillary movie) within 30 to 60 days of a federal election? If “news” corporations are allowed to do so then why not others?

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

Why should government have a say in anything?

The issue is that vast amounts of wealth = power. THat much power, without checks/balances, leads to a corrupted system. For the same reasons that our government uses checks and balances and division of power, etc., doesn't accept bribes, is the same reason we should limit money in politics.
The idea that it limits free speech is nonsense. It's a huge part of how our governance comes into being...it should be regulated with sensible regulations regarding money (power).

 

[Crovax]

Devil's advocate or Putin's advocate?

So would you support a jurisdictional limit on political spending? I would

 

[Warcok]

Dimocrats won't have it because all the silicon valley, wall street and hollywood billionaire sodomites donate to them.

 

[dockside]

That's certainly an issue, but how do you stop it and still protect the citizens ability to exercise their political expression without repercussions?

Also playing devils advocate here why is external influence negative? Liberals (and conservatives) spend massive amounts every year outside their own jurisdictions to influence policy. Why should a New Yorker have any influence over Texas elections anymore than Germany having influence over US elections?

1st question: You state that corporations, businesses, are not citizens. That would not have an effect on actual people being able to contribute to federal elections or any other election.

2nd question: And, it makes sense that only actual citizens of a state be allowed to contribute to its state candidates. However, federal candidates pass legislation that affects everyone in the U.S. so those candidates' election donations should not be limited to just state citizens.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's certainly an issue, but how do you stop it and still protect the citizens ability to exercise their political expression without repercussions?

Also playing devils advocate here why is external influence negative? Liberals (and conservatives) spend massive amounts every year outside their own jurisdictions to influence policy. Why should a New Yorker have any influence over Texas elections anymore than Germany having influence over US elections?

What I mean is that Russians and Chinese can use the existing dark money channels to influence our elections. I don't think that's appropriate and its already been documented as happening.

 

[Crovax]

1st question: You state that corporations, businesses, are not citizens. That would not have an effect on actual people being able to contribute to federal elections or any other election.

I reject the idea that if people join together in a corporation they lose their 1st amendment rights.

2nd question: And, it makes sense that only actual citizens of a state be allowed to contribute to its state candidates. However, federal candidates pass legislation that affects everyone in the U.S. so those candidates' election donations should not be limited to just state citizens.

No one candidate passes legislation, the representative should be a representative of that district no outside influences

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why should government have a say in anything?

The issue is that vast amounts of wealth = power. THat much power, without checks/balances, leads to a corrupted system. For the same reasons that our government uses checks and balances and division of power, etc., doesn't accept bribes, is the same reason we should limit money in politics.
The idea that it limits free speech is nonsense. It's a huge part of how our governance comes into being...it should be regulated with sensible regulations regarding money (power).

OK, but why should MSNBC and Fox News be allowed to do what CU (or any other group) are not?

 

[Crovax]

What I mean is that Russians and Chinese can use the existing dark money channels to influence our elections. I don't think that's appropriate.

I don't think its appropriate that New York and California funnel money to influence who is elected in Georgia.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think its appropriate that New York and California funnel money to influence who is elected in Georgia.

I would be willing to give that up to avoid the problem of dark money and its open door for foreign influence.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't think its appropriate that New York and California funnel money to influence who is elected in Georgia.

Why not? NY and CA certainly control federal law in GA.

 

[Crovax]

Why not? NY and CA certainly control federal law in GA.

No they don't, they have a repersenatitve vote in what federal law is. Huge difference, and it's precisely WHY they want to influence who gets elected in Georgia so they can expand their slice of power.

 

[gdgyva]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

only if we also limit every union from donating

or better yet, get rid of ALL money from EVERY source (pacs, superpacs, dark money, etc)

every candidate is given x amount depending on what he/she is running for....house, senate, president....they can spend it anyway they like but it all must be accounted for

if people want to donate, they donate to the government which then throws that money in to offset what they paid out to candidates

no one buys anyones vote...PERIOD

 

[Crovax]

I would be willing to give that up to avoid the problem of dark money and its open door for foreign influence.

Agreed, I think jurisdictional limits are an important part of election reform

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would be willing to give that up to avoid the problem of dark money and its open door for foreign influence.

We should never give up free political speech leaving it up to some government agency to decide which corporations and/or groups can (or can’t) speak freely on political matters within 30 to 60 days of a federal election. The SCOTUS was 100% correct in it’s CU ruling.

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

 

[Integrityrespec]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

Mrs. Clinton’s total expenses were $565 million, compared with $775 million for President Obama; Mr. Trump spent $322 million, while Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee that year, spent $460 million.

Editors’ Picks​

San Francisco’s D.A. Says Angry Elites Want Him Out of Office​

Out of the Desert, a Rare Fruit Garden and a Lasting Legacy​

May I Disinherit My Right-Wing Daughters?​

 

[lwf]

We should never give up free political speech leaving it up to some government agency to decide which corporations and/or groups can (or can’t) speak freely on political matters within 30 to 60 days of a federal election. The SCOTUS was 100% correct in it’s CU ruling.

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

When wealth is more or less evenly distributed, then this is fine. But when it starts becoming concentrated into a few organizations and individuals, and if votes can effectively be purchased under the doctrine of free speech, then at what point does a democracy transform into an oligarchy?

 

[Slartibartfast]

We should never give up free political speech leaving it up to some government agency to decide which corporations and/or groups can (or can’t) speak freely on political matters within 30 to 60 days of a federal election. The SCOTUS was 100% correct in it’s CU ruling.

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

Then we just need to get use to the social unrest and hope we keep having a country.