Congressman Schiff introduces constitutional amendment

[butters]

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and once again allow for reasonable restrictions on corporate campaign contributions and other spending.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...izens-united/ar-AAVsFAm?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

“Thanks to one disastrous ruling, wealthy megadonors, corporations, and special interest groups have been able to influence elections when that power should belong with the American people. This has eroded faith in the government’s ability to deliver for the people and their families,” said Schiff. “Dark money should have no place in our democracy. It is time to return power to the people, and overturn Citizens United once and for all.”

 

[HisArpy]

Meanwhile he takes in loads of cash from Soros and the rest...

 

[LLCox]

That bastard...

 

[Dribble]

It will never pass because money is the root of power...but still it needs to be brought up every
Session to highlight those corrupt members

 

[Rightguide]

After November Adam Schiff will lose his seat on the House Intel Committee and shrink into insignificance.

 

[Dribble]

What ignorant Republicans don't seem to understand...one does not have to be a Chairman to introduce legislation

 

[pecksniff]

Meanwhile he takes in loads of cash from Soros and the rest...

Nobody proposes disarmament while at the same time disarming unilaterally.

 

[ll74]

Question- would it take an amendment to override CU?

 

[pecksniff]

Question- would it take an amendment to override CU?

The only other way would be a reversal by the SCOTUS, which would require massive change in its composition.

What the court really needs to overturn however, is the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo -- that was the decision that started this whole subject down the wrong path.

 

[pecksniff]

I hope we all at least can agree: Money =/= speech. Campaign financing should not be a subject of First Amendment protection.

 

[YDB95]

Meanwhile he takes in loads of cash from Soros and the rest...

Why shouldn't he, when the other side is so well funded?

 

[HisArpy]

Why shouldn't he, when the other side is so well funded?

Did you not read or understand what what posted?

“Thanks to one disastrous ruling, wealthy megadonors, corporations, and special interest groups have been able to influence elections when that power should belong with the American people. This has eroded faith in the government’s ability to deliver for the people and their families,” said Schiff. “Dark money should have no place in our democracy. It is time to return power to the people, and overturn Citizens United once and for all.”

I wonder how you can believe anyone who lies to your face that he wants to get corporate cash out of politics while that very same someone accepts dark money. That big fat D after his name must affect your mental acumen to the point your brain shuts down completely.

 

[YDB95]

Did you not read or understand what what posted?



I wonder how you can believe anyone who lies to your face that he wants to get corporate cash out of politics while that very same someone accepts dark money. That big fat D after his name must affect your mental acumen to the point your brain shuts down completely.

I can't tell if you're missing my point or just ignoring it. In any event, all I'm saying is, it makes no sense for the Democrats to turn down corporate cash while it's still legal, since the Republicans sure as heck won't.

 

[pecksniff]

I wonder how you can believe anyone who lies to your face that he wants to get corporate cash out of politics while that very same someone accepts dark money. That big fat D after his name must affect your mental acumen to the point your brain shuts down completely.

Nobody proposes disarmament while at the same time disarming unilaterally.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Question- would it take an amendment to override CU?

I’m no legal expert but assume Schiff would not have introduced it if there were a legislative alternative. The ruling cited 1A. The proposed amendment will go nowhere.

 

[pecksniff]

I’m no legal expert but assume Schiff would not have introduced it if there were a legislative alternative. The ruling cited 1A. The proposed amendment will go nowhere.

Why would it go nowhere?

I notice nobody in this thread has presented any actual arguments against it.

 

[pecksniff]

I hope we all at least can agree: Money =/= speech. Campaign financing should not be a subject of First Amendment protection.

This above all.

 

[njlauren]

The problem is the Supreme Court decided after several hundred years of judicial precedent that corporations were people and therefore deserved 1A protections for spending hundreds of millions buying politicians (interesting that the federalists would claim this goes along with their reasoning, I would love to see any writings from those who wrote the constitution, let alone in the constitution, that said 1a was anything but a protection for individuals. They did what they usually whine about liberal judges doing , 'creating' law. Saying corporations are composed of people is laughable, on that grounds then you can't, for example, regulate truth in advertising laws because 'that is regulating speech'.

Legislatively the Scotus ruling made it illegal to regulate spending on political campaigns on 1A grounds so yes, a constitutional amendment would be required to overturn the Scotus decision. it will never pass, the MAGA trash whine about how the little guy has no power, how the powers that be don't care about them, yet the GQP knows damn well that without that corporate and rich donor money they can't create the fascist state they want. The MAGAts think it is going to be a white man's paradise, wait until they find out that hoi polloi white blue collar idiots like themselves under the republicans will be just like their ancestors in the confederacy, poor trash scrambling to make a living so the rich can have everything

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why would it go nowhere?

I notice nobody in this thread has presented any actual arguments against it.

Because it needs to a two thirds vote in each chamber of Congress and then approval of 3/4ths of the states. Labor unions, business groups, and issue oriented special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and the NRA like CU.

 

[LittleDixie]

Here's the text they want to add to the Constitution:

‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States from imposing reasonable viewpoint-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures, or from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.’’

 

[pecksniff]

Because it needs to a two thirds vote in each chamber of Congress and then approval of 3/4ths of the states. Labor unions, business groups, and issue oriented special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and the NRA like CU.

None of that is an argument against the amendment.

 

[pecksniff]

Here's the text they want to add to the Constitution:

Sounds a bit more . . . modern ("reasonable viewpoint-neutral limitations") than most constitutional language even in recent amendments. But otherwise unobjectionable.

 

[pecksniff]

Because it needs to a two thirds vote in each chamber of Congress and then approval of 3/4ths of the states. Labor unions, business groups, and issue oriented special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and the NRA like CU.

It's hard to believe labor unions or Planned Parenthood like it. They know the campaign donations they can make are negligible compared to the corporate sector. So are the NRA's donations -- it is an organization feared in Washington not because it can give or withhold campaign donations, but because it can mobilize single-issue voters.

 

[pecksniff]

Here's a better one -- the Saving Democracy Amendment, proposed by Begich and Sanders in 2011:

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.[46]

 

[LittleDixie]

Sounds a bit more . . . modern ("reasonable viewpoint-neutral limitations") than most constitutional language even in recent amendments. But otherwise unobjectionable.

What is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me, and who decides if you are being viewpoint-neutral? Just sounds too vague for a constitutional amendment.

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Natural persons, not citizens, huh? And once again, the government takes steps to strip rights away. With a single sentence, this section would strip all constitutional rights from all businesses. What this would mean is that companies no longer have the rights of free speech, and the government can tell any for-profit entity what they can and cannot say, publish or broadcast. All companies could be searched at any time with or without a warrant, for any reason by any government agent or agency.

No, this is awful. At section 1, you lost me.