- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,230
- Reaction score
- 28,000
- 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:
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:
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?