- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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?
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...
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.
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?
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?