Jump to content

Overturn Citizens United


eatcorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Copied from a friend:

For anyone concerned with corporate influence in our political system, this is massive. Yesterday, the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was formally adopted by the Senate’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Subcommittee. NEXT STEP? Vote by Judiciary Committee on July 10. Let your senators know that you want this passed!!! Let's overturn Citizens United.

http://www.democracy...infographic.cfm

I signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave it tah Corn and his lemming friends...smh

Origins: The "proposed 28th Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution outlined above (sometimes circulated in modified form as the "Congressional Reform Act of 2011") suggests that all laws made by Congress applying to citizens of the United States apply equally to members of Congress themselves (a sentiment which is commonly expressed by critics of health reform efforts). Although this item could be said to have no real "true" or "false" quality to it (since what it referenced was just a hypothetical proposal and not a real piece of legislation), all of the supporting arguments accompanying it are false, and the answers to common questions asked about it are all nearly all negative:

Is this [text] the actual 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

No. The U.S. Constitution has only 27 amendments, the last of which (a limit on Congressional pay increases) was ratified in 1992.

Is this [text] really the proposed 28th Amendment?

This item is a "proposed 28th amendment" in the very loose sense that any change to the U.S. Constitution suggested since the ratification of the 27th Amendment is a "proposed 28th Amendment." However, when this piece hit the Internet back in 2009 it was just a bit of Internet-based politicking, not something that had been introduced or proposed as a potential amendment by any current member of Congress.

In August 2013, nearly four years after this item began making the rounds on the Internet, two Congressmen (Ron DeSantis of Florida and Matt Salmon of Arizona) did introduce a joint resolution (H.J.RES.55) similar to the first example shown above, proposing an amendment to the Constitution stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting the citizens of the United States that does not also apply to the Senators and Representatives." That bill will almost certainly die in committee, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any such broadly worded amendment could ever pass muster in Congress without the underlying idea being subject to a good many qualifications.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp#R89xlOso3bkdK20K.99

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TH...

Bah I just want citizens united to go away... Money should not equal speech.

Not trying to ad hominem, but do you feel that corps should be able to do what they did this last election through superpacs?

Yes. Speech is speech, whether it's just you on the street corner yelling out or holding up a sign, or 100 of your closest friends got together to buy a bunch of billboards and radio ads.

The amount of money in politics is a result of the size, scope, and power of government, Change that, and it becomes less valuable to someone wishing to influence it. Keep feeding the beast and it will continue to get further out of the reach of the average American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If corporations = people who can exercise free speech, then corporations (and their constituents) should also be subject to legitimate criminal penalties for criminal actions. I'm looking at you HSBC.

Edit to ask the question, why should my access to money be a measuring stick to how loud my voice is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd like to sign the petition in an effort to advance the cause of getting corporate money out of politics, something we all seem to agree on, please sign.

If you'd like to skip that step, and seek out ways to mock that effort, while insulting me and my friends, then you're truthhurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If corporations = people who can exercise free speech, then corporations (and their constituents) should also be subject to legitimate criminal penalties for criminal actions. I'm looking at you HSBC.

Edit to ask the question, why should my access to money be a measuring stick to how loud my voice is?

Corps can't really go to jail but nefarious individuals within them can. They certainly can be fined and restrained from conducting certain types of business.

RE your edit, it's skin in the game. Everyone has a voice. Are you willing to put your money or your time where your mouth is?

Even the attempt by Eatcorn's friend is more than just a voice, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Speech is speech, whether it's just you on the street corner yelling out or holding up a sign, or 100 of your closest friends got together to buy a bunch of billboards and radio ads.

The amount of money in politics is a result of the size, scope, and power of government, Change that, and it becomes less valuable to someone wishing to influence it. Keep feeding the beast and it will continue to get further out of the reach of the average American.

What a laughable display of historical ignorance to push an agenda. Attempts to buy off members of governments by the wealthy and businesses is nothing new and has been done since the start. It was at its worse during the Gilded Age when, surprise, the government was extremely weak. The only thing that has changed has been Citizens United jamming the flood gates to keep them open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the theory of money=speech, but its practice has become extremely undemocratic and lends itself to corruption and foreign influence. No ******* way should multinational corporations that duck taxes, exploit 3rd-world labor at the cost of American jobs, and have shown themselves to be utterly disloyal to our country, be able to pour unlimited money into elections (and then hide that fact through shell games and exotic, untraceable organizations). **** that to death.

Edited by BigBoyCaprice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a laughable display of historical ignorance to push an agenda. Attempts to buy off members of governments by the wealthy and businesses is nothing new and has been done since the start. It was at its worse during the Gilded Age when, surprise, the government was extremely weak. The only thing that has changed has been Citizens United jamming the flood gates to keep them open.

You can't be serious. Some of you can't seem to even grasp what was in place with McCain Feingold, and what was overturned by Citizens United. Just so you understand how you're tying direct briberies for government positions like during the Gilded Age, you're saying a 501c3 or 4 entity runs an anti Hillary movie within 60 days of the election; that is lining the pockets of the politicians.

Nothing changed on the amount individuals or corporations can donate to candidates. In fact, corporations are still banned from contributing to candidates and parties directly. All it said is that corporations and individuals, which most are non profit advocacy groups, can spend their own money on their own political commercials and ads within the period of time 30-60 days prior to an election. And while everyone focuses on corporation = person, they forget the right to assembly that exists along side the right to free speech. Somehow this is being conflated with the millions spent on lobbying government and regulators.

However, bringing up the Gilded Age reminds me that the largest lobbying and issue advocacy groups are unions, specifically Federal Unions. Talk about being a little too close to bribery. Even Roosevelt recognized the danger of government employee unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

And that is the rub. Who decides what is considered political? Does that mean MGM couldn't produce an Obama movie down the road, or that SNL could nolonger mock candidates?

stop worrying about consequences! there is a slippery slope to plunge down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wink.png being apart of all smile.png doesn't give you wink.png the right to use your money to positively influence wink.png things in your favorsmile.png that negatively affect the rest.

/dorkmodeoff

Again, it's funny seeing the boys that cry about "Liberal elitists" attacking something that would help put a wedge between "elitists" and government(Conservative AND liberal).

More should be done but now the lemmings wont even allow a start because the talking heads have gave them the rhetoric to spew. ABF is a fine example of why people are idiots.

Edited by MDFMK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wink.png being apart of all smile.png doesn't give you wink.png the right to use your money to positively influence wink.png things in your favorsmile.png that negatively affect the rest.

It's their money and it's still America...so yeah...they can. And no matter what my tax bracket, I'll never be part of your "rest of us" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...