Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced a constitutional amendment directed at overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision on campaign finance. The amendment would also overturn a Supreme Court decision that struck down an Arizona law that allowed public financing of a candidate if their opponent exceeded certain spending limits.
Is this a good idea? Or would it be the first constitutional amendment since the 18th, allowing for prohibition of alcohol, which would restrict freedoms and liberties rather than enhance them – in this case free speech? What have been the down sides of Citizens United?
First it has to get passed. That’s unlikely.
Second, the down side of Citizens United is that corporations and unions are not required to reveal every cent paid to whomever.
Remember, for all their bluster, unions too were empowered by Citizens United. Their complaint is that the playing field is now level. Unions had other ways of donating that corporations did not.
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent political campaign expenditures. Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states 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.”
Uh. No.
@marinm
If this is the text of the amendment… I agree. There is just way too much leeway for abuse by government.
I don’t think either situation is good. I am not a union person for the most part. I don’t think everything about unions is good.
I think you all are asking to be owned by rich people, or at least be their tools.
I want rid of Citizens United. Nothing wrong with transparency except when it comes to voting. that we should get to do in private.
“I want rid of Citizens United. Nothing wrong with transparency except when it comes to voting. that we should get to do in private.”
Can you clarify this? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Cargo, yes that looks like it’s the amendment – at least thats how the article portrays it as.
I mean secret ballot. No one should get to see who we vote for if we don’t chose to tell them.
CU has nothing to do with secret ballots. Actually, the (Obama) NLRB wanted to do away with secret ballots for employee voting of union representation. I don’t recall if that actually got passed. Cargo may know.
It hasn’t been passed, but the National Labor Relations Board is trying to implement it by fiat….. hey..that sounds familiar. Must be the right thing to do.
@marinm
I never said that it should. I said that should be the only voting secrecy. Who we give money to should not be secret.
My comment about secret ballot is taking on a life of its own. It should not. It was an aside.
@Moon-howler
Copy. Like I said I wasn’t tracking with what you were saying.
But, if ballots are the only thing that should be secret — why do you support Holder and Obama’s use of EP with regard to Fast and Furious?
Going back to CU. CU doesn’t do anything but say that money can be in politics and that money should not be limited because money == free speech.
I don’t see that as wrong. Why do you disagree?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I am talking about election and campaign money. You are cross threading. Let’s just pretend I am not in favor of secret ballots. I can take my statement disappear. That removes the temptation of trying to make something out of nothing.
I really don’t think money is free speech. Period.
SO your solution is to allow a law that limits speech of the wealthy in order to obtain a quasi-fairness doctrine so those without money have a voice?
Does a $1 bumper sticker count as free speech to you? What then becomes the limit and why?
No. Displaying a bumper sticker is free speech and it isn’t without limits. Paying the money for the bumper sticker is not free speech. Money isn’t speech.
To imply that money = speech would mean that some people have freer speech than others.
If you can’t aford the bumper sticker should the govt step in and buy you that sticker so that you aren’t without ‘free speech’?
“To imply that money = speech would mean that some people have freer speech than others.”
But it is and does. Money provides options, right? If I have more money I have more options in terms of what I want to buy to eat, where I can live, where my kids can go to schools, etc. We accept that.
If I pay for the perk of going to the head of the line should there be a law that limits that, too?
No matter how much money is pumped into the political system it STILL comes down to YOU and I going into that booth and casting a ballot. And, I can tell you that there is NO amount of money that can be spent to get me to vote for Romney OR Obama (Obamney).
Right now this election is being bought and sold by whoever has the most money, not who has the best ideas. What happens when someone comes along like Hitler who is well financed by those who want to dominate the world?
Money is not speech and that is such a crock of crap….What was that court thinking??????
So how do you prevent someone from spending money on a candidate?
And its not just Citizen’s United. It was ok for corps to send money prior to McCain’s attack on free speech. If we can control one aspect, it sets precedent for others.
Really? Hitler? You picked a man chosen by popular vote during extreme crisis and try to blame it on money? Remember, Hitler was a socialist that got elected on a populist message of controlling the money.
American history is awash with stories of poorer candidates defeating richer ones. Why was there no outrage when Obama was bragging that he was raising a billion dollars? And the unions in Wisconsin would not have been able to spend millions against Walker.
So, how does one NOT spend money to support a candidate? What types of groups should not be allowed to donate?
If you have individual citizens only, how much?
Personally I don’t have a problem with allowing only citizens to donate individually. But if there is a limit to the donations…how much? Should bundling be allowed? Should organizations be allowed to collect from individuals? Then we’re right back where we started.
I say, let the donations be from whomever. ALL donations need to be public and listed on the web within 24 hours. If money comes from a “PAC” or org, than THAT organization needs to list ITS funding sources.
If a politician is supporting his donors “too much” we can take appropriate action.
Politics is rarely a poor man’s game. That’s why its all lawyers.
I never said that no money can be spent but heretofore, there have been limits and contributions weren’t blind.
It is also my personal belief that it costs way too much money to get elected. The very idea of a presidential election being in the billions.
Think of the number of people that could feed or the schools it could build. Instead it is used for candidates to bend and twist the truth and tell lies about each other.
I have to admit that this is actually an example in which government is functioning correctly. The Supreme Court slapped down Congress for limiting the ability of certain groups of people to contribute money as they see fit. There are those in Congress who disagree with the ruling and have introduced a constitutional amendment to address it.
I disagree with the amendment, but respect Rep Schiff for addressing his concerns in the right way.
“It is also my personal belief that it costs way too much money to get elected. The very idea of a presidential election being in the billions.”
Absolutely agree.
@kelly_3406
Good point. +1
“Right now this election is being bought and sold by whoever has the most money, not who has the best ideas.”
I understand that’s how Obama won but don’t hate the man cause he has bad ideas and a lot of money. He is still our President.
“What happens when someone comes along like Hitler who is well financed by those who want to dominate the world?”
It’s called the 2nd Amendment.
“It is also my personal belief that it costs way too much money to get elected. The very idea of a presidential election being in the billions.”
Elections favor incumbants. So, its almost a requirement for a person looking to unseat an incumbant has to get past the home field advantage by raising more money. That’s just how things work and will never change – nor do I think they should change.
If I have a lot of money and want to spend it on billboards (rather than hookers and blow..nod to Charlie Sheen) saying that the current guy is bad for America then it’s my money to do as I please. I have no obligation to spend it on anything but what I want. Why limit that? Why are you ok with limiting my speech?
The election isn’t bought. The point that I was making is that no matter how much money I spend. Even in the billions. I cannot MAKE you vote for Romney. You will still decide to cast your lot with Obama. And, that’s ok. That’s your right. You have the right to vote how you please and I should have the right to say what I please.
The person with the most marbles nearly always wins. the Hitler remark was probably the most irresponsible response I have heard on this blog.
Surely you are kidding?
@Moon-howler
You do realize that you brought up Hitler……
Yes and I am not in moderation. So. I didnt compare anyone to Hitler except Hitler himself.
I really don’t undersatnd what your saying – at all. Sorry, I’m at a loss.
Ignoring the Hitler part — can I spend any amount of money on advertising that can change your mind and have you vote for Romney? Same positions that he has currently (which is to say Obama’s positions..) Would you vote for the man if I bombarded you with commercials, flyers and billboards?
…money won’t change your vote. Money paid on speech won’t buy an election.
Why did you mention Hitler? I thought you meant my old edict from several years ago about not saying Hitler.
Why did YOU mention Hitler?
I realize that Hitler could never be elected because of Constitutional restraints. I meant Hitler-ish someone.
@marin
Actually, you don’t know that I won’t vote for Romney. Find some place on here where I have attacked Romney.
I believe I have written one tiny little anti Romeny piece and it was pretty mild.
Get off the Hitler thing–it is stupid. Who gives a rat’s behind about Hitler? Yes, there are those here whose vote can’t be bought at any price but if you don’t believe that there is a huge portion of the voting public that is swayed by campaign ads, then I must say that you are living in some never-never land. Why do you think millions of dollars get spent on campaign ads. Do they do it just so ad agencies can make a lot of money? Are you shitting me? They do it because Joe Six-pack and his bride sit in front of the TV in their living room of the double-wide and soak up the crap like it was manna from Heaven. And then they go out an vote based on what they have seen and heard. Candidates know this, campaign managers know this, ad agencies know this ; the only people who don’t seem to know this or recognize that this is how the world works are some of ther bloggers writing here. Get a life.
Ahem….
I said Hitler because he was the worst person I could think of at the moment. My point was …what if someone really dreadful was running…a Hitler type of person…and there was an attempt at world domination, those with the most money would win the election. Foreign people could get easier control. with unlimited money there is always more room for abuse.
I hate Citizens united. It needs to go and I believe it is dangerous. We need to know who is buying our elections. We need to have limits. I don’t believe in this My money I can pour it into whichever election I want. There needs to be a limit and no I dont think money equals free speech.
“Get off the Hitler thing–it is stupid.”
I agree. But the conservatives here didn’t bring it up. Usually that word kills threads.
“..but if you don’t believe that there is a huge portion of the voting public that is swayed by campaign ads, then I must say that you are living in some never-never land.”
No, but that’s the POINT. Speech is about swaying opinion but in the end its up to the listener to listen, tune it out or act on it in any number of ways. We should encourage speech not try to stifle it.