Amendment to Reverse SCOTUS Citizens United Ruling
Link from The Hill. Dodd introduced an amendment to reverse SCOTUS Citizens United ruling. I will be cheering wildly (along with a huge majority of people according to polls like this) if this can actually pass both Houses.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced a constitutional amendment today
to overrule a recent Supreme Court decision on campaign spending.
The
court ruled 5-4 last month in Citizens United v. FEC that Congress
cannot regulate independent expenditures by corporations and possibly
labor unions. The ruling could dramatically increase third party
spending on elections.
Dodd's amendment, co-sponsored by Sen.
Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would explicitly grant Congress the authority to
regulate campaign fundraising and expenditures for federal elections.
The amendment would also let states regular such activity in their own elections.
"I
strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that money is
speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual
Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights,” Dodd
said in a statement.
I'd love something to come
I'd love something to come of it, but getting this to pass 3/4 of both the Senate and the House and then 3/4 of all state legislatures is darn near impossible.
It be faster and easier for Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, & Roberts, to be replaced over time and for the new court to reverse the prior decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Where's the text of the
Where's the text of the Amendment?
Needless to say, I would probably be opposed to it.
I hope your amendment
I hope your amendment counts to the things that will solve our recent troubles especially our system.Issues like this should take us along to the proper actions to these problems. You see, lot's of people are into payday loans because we are experiencing crisis and until now we are finding reasons to solve this problems.
That's it Lexie. I warned
That's it Lexie. I warned you a few days ago, after unlinking your site, that your account would be terminated if this continued.
It now is.
Only the artful spammer
LOL!
If this amendment can
Did you hear Justice Roberts
How exactly did they stomp
How exactly did they stomp on the Constitution?
The First Amendment says what it says. Some people want to change that -- hence this thread. I am not one of them though.
I don't know, Tin. I can't
I think if they didn't want
I think if they didn't want big business to be able to speak and write politically then they would have said so. After all, they did have big business back then, too.
The First Amendment doesn't specify "individuals". It says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. It also says that the people have the right to peaceably assemble.
There are other rights which we enjoy as individuals and to which we logically extend to corporations and other groups too, such as not allowing illegal search and seizure without due process of law.
As for foreign-owned companies having influence over our electoral process? I don't think they could or would. I mean all this ruling affects is political speech and electioneering. Corporations, foreign-owned or not, still cannot donate directly to candidates or parties. All they can do is advertise.
What about a company such as Al-Jazeera, which also part of the media? Or part of "the press" if you prefer? Does the First Amendment apply to them even though they are a foreign corporation? For me, I would say that "yes it does".
The First Amendment was designed to protect political speech and political expression no matter by whom.
Okay, that makes sense; I'm
He was doing OK until "on
He was doing OK until "on the other hand."
Whatever!
From LA Times. How sweet.
Wait, Justice Thomas' wife
Wait, Justice Thomas' wife will directly benefit from an expansion of free speech rights??
The horror! /sarcasm
Corperations should have
Corperations should have more rights, but they already have more leeway than ordinary citizens. Jon jokes about how much they get away with in this segment that's also about Dodd's proposal to prevent another similar financial crisis. Ridiculous attempt in my opinion and Dodd is one of the last people I want behind this kind of thing. He seems useless and I won't forget him leading the way for corporate and insurance campaign contributions.
Full Episodes