• 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!

Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen United?"

Would you support a Constitutional Amendment that limits "person" to Natural Persons?


  • Total voters
    20

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,893
Reaction score
25,004
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen United?"

In another thread one of the Forum members kindly posted the link to a new Bill in Congress regarding election law.

I repost the link here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text#toc-HFCF939CAA6204AF6B40DEAFAC99FBBFA

Now I have been reading through it and have seen one or two items of note I agree with, one golden nugget being this:

subtitle A—Findings Relating to Citizens United Decision

SEC. 5001. Findings relating to Citizens United decision.

Congress finds the following:

...In the wake of Citizens United and other damaging Federal court decisions, Americans have witnessed an explosion of outside spending in elections. Outside spending increased nearly 900 percent between the 2008 and 2016 Presidential election years. Indeed, the 2018 elections once again made clear the overwhelming political power of wealthy special interests, to the tune of over $5,000,000,000. And as political entities adapt to a post-Citizens United, post-McCutcheon landscape, these trends are getting worse, as evidenced by the experience in the 2018 midterm congressional elections, where outside spending more than doubled from the previous midterm cycle...

13)
In order to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral process and to ensure political equality for all, the Constitution should be amended so that Congress and the States may regulate and set limits on the raising and spending of money to influence elections and may distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, like corporations, that are created by law, including by prohibiting such artificial entities from spending money to influence elections.

I understand the purpose of allowing corporate entities protection against legal liability for common investors by identifying the incorporated entity as an "individual" thereby limiting legal liability only to assets held by the incorporated entity.

However, I never agreed with SCOTUS's interpretation that such an entity was also an "individual" for purposes of contributions and campaign spending during elections.

I agree with the findings in this part of the Bill, and wonder...would you support a Constitutional Amendment which limits the definition of "individual" to "natural persons" thus allowing Congress to regulate all other entities more rigorously?
 

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
20,496
Reaction score
11,767
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

In another thread one of the Forum members kindly posted the link to a new Bill in Congress regarding election law.

I repost the link here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text#toc-HFCF939CAA6204AF6B40DEAFAC99FBBFA

Now I have been reading through it and have seen one or two items of note I agree with, one golden nugget being this:



I understand the purpose of allowing corporate entities protection against legal liability for common investors by identifying the incorporated entity as an "individual" thereby limiting legal liability only to assets held by the incorporated entity.

However, I never agreed with SCOTUS's interpretation that such an entity was also an "individual" for purposes of contributions and campaign spending during elections.

I agree with the findings in this part of the Bill, and wonder...would you support a Constitutional Amendment which limits the definition of "individual" to "natural persons" thus allowing Congress to regulate all other entities more rigorously?

I think that would improve your government incredibly. I think they should go many steps further, and put a significant cap on overall spending, with strict fair share of publicity regulations, limiting campaign advertising to bare bones policy statements, debates, platform outlines, and eliminate all the branding and over production that you see out there. No propaganda rallies, no parades. Just, this is what we're going to do, and here's why we're better than the other folks.

But getting corporations out of it would be a great start...hehe...
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

"Corporations are people" was one of our huge unforgivable mistakes and now get worse with "Apes have human rights" and "bodies of water have human rights".

INSANITY
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,137
Reaction score
57,064
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

In another thread one of the Forum members kindly posted the link to a new Bill in Congress regarding election law.

I repost the link here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text#toc-HFCF939CAA6204AF6B40DEAFAC99FBBFA

Now I have been reading through it and have seen one or two items of note I agree with, one golden nugget being this:



I understand the purpose of allowing corporate entities protection against legal liability for common investors by identifying the incorporated entity as an "individual" thereby limiting legal liability only to assets held by the incorporated entity.

However, I never agreed with SCOTUS's interpretation that such an entity was also an "individual" for purposes of contributions and campaign spending during elections.

I agree with the findings in this part of the Bill, and wonder...would you support a Constitutional Amendment which limits the definition of "individual" to "natural persons" thus allowing Congress to regulate all other entities more rigorously?

I voted no. I tend to disapprove of constitutional amendments except for really, really important stuff. As much as I dislike the results of Citizens United, I do not think it rises to the level that a constitutional amendment is needed.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

I think that would improve your government incredibly. I think they should go many steps further, and put a significant cap on overall spending, with strict fair share of publicity regulations, limiting campaign advertising to bare bones policy statements, debates, platform outlines, and eliminate all the branding and over production that you see out there. No propaganda rallies, no parades. Just, this is what we're going to do, and here's why we're better than the other folks.

But getting corporations out of it would be a great start...hehe...

I just don't see how you unwind it so that it could even be considered since the actual decision was that the people making the decision to spend the money were using their freedom of association as a group to make the decisions on spending it. Similar to a union, for instance.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,893
Reaction score
25,004
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

I just don't see how you unwind it so that it could even be considered since the actual decision was that the people making the decision to spend the money were using their freedom of association as a group to make the decisions on spending it. Similar to a union, for instance.

Well, I've belonged to a union, and funny thing...no one in the hierarchy ever asked me, nor anyone else to my knowledge outside the "leadership" whether or not we wanted to fund this or that campaign.

Moreover, in regards to corporations, I don't think many of the decision-makers asked their stockholders if they wanted the funds donated, for what and to whom.

Just because people invest in a business, typically expecting the funds to be used to develop the business, does not necessarily mean that they would also support the funds to be used to bribe or buy influence.
 
Last edited:

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,643
Reaction score
26,133
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

in regards to the very specific topic I voted "yes" but only because there was no option for abso****inlutely :)
 

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

In another thread one of the Forum members kindly posted the link to a new Bill in Congress regarding election law.

I repost the link here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text#toc-HFCF939CAA6204AF6B40DEAFAC99FBBFA

Now I have been reading through it and have seen one or two items of note I agree with, one golden nugget being this:



I understand the purpose of allowing corporate entities protection against legal liability for common investors by identifying the incorporated entity as an "individual" thereby limiting legal liability only to assets held by the incorporated entity.

However, I never agreed with SCOTUS's interpretation that such an entity was also an "individual" for purposes of contributions and campaign spending during elections.

I agree with the findings in this part of the Bill, and wonder...would you support a Constitutional Amendment which limits the definition of "individual" to "natural persons" thus allowing Congress to regulate all other entities more rigorously?

Tell the Bolshevik anarchists to leave the Constitution alone. It is not broken and does not need their kind of ungodly 'fixes.'
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

Well, I've belonged to a union, and funny thing...no one in the hierarchy ever asked me, nor anyone else to my knowledge outside the "leadership" whether or not we wanted to fund this or that campaign.

Moreover, in regards to corporations, I don't think many of the decision-makers asked their stockholders if they wanted the funds donated, for what and to whom.

Just because people invest in a business, typically expecting the funds to be used to develop the business, does not necessarily mean that they would also support the funds to be used to bribe or buy influence.

That is true, but the basic problem is that becomes an issue for the stockholders in how that money is spent. Government shouldn't break the right of association simply because they don't like how its being spent or rather, a political party decides that.
 

Waddy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
8,518
Reaction score
2,430
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

I voted other.

I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment that shortens the campaign season to six weeks before an election, provides public funding and no private campaign contributions, does not allow PAC spending at all, and prohibits any organization from working on behalf of a candidate. Create a truly level playing field.

BTW; I understand why the SC ruled as they did in Citizens. Law has always considered corporations "people". You couldn't have corporations if you didn't. I can sue a corporation as a person. I don't have to sue each employee and each stockholder separately. I can sign a contract with the corporation just like they were a person I am doing business with. So I agree with the concept.
 
Last edited:

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,753
Reaction score
5,227
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

Hell ****ing yes I would.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Would You Support a Constitutional Amendment that Abolishes Corporate Spending per "Citizen Unit

However, I never agreed with SCOTUS's interpretation that such an entity was also an "individual" for purposes of contributions and campaign spending during elections.

I agree with the findings in this part of the Bill, and wonder...would you support a Constitutional Amendment which limits the definition of "individual" to "natural persons" thus allowing Congress to regulate all other entities more rigorously?

Any corporation large enough to significantly swing votes in our elections ought to be broken up.
 
Top Bottom