It is currently 05/05/24 11:01 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 9 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/11 2:57 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
Saving American Democracy Amendment 

Sanders on Thursday proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that allowed unrestricted and secret campaign spending by corporations on U.S. elections. The first constitutional amendment ever proposed by Sanders during his two decades in Congress would reverse the 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.  In that infamous decision almost two years ago, justices gave corporations the same First Amendment free-speech rights as people. Watch him introduce the amendment. Take our poll. Join more than 32,000 people and sign the petition.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=54F1531A-0EE1-4726-961D-59E14BF5107D



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/11 3:15 pm • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112

John, I did the short poll and signed the petition ~ to me, Citizens United is the single-most damaging USSC decision ... maybe ever ~ certainly within my lifetime ~ and what is so deeply misguided in the decision is that corporations were handed expanded rights over individuals because there IS a limitation on what an individual can spend per election cycle ~

Sooz



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/11 3:39 pm • # 3 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Always liked Sanders.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/09/11 3:44 pm • # 4 
sooz08 wrote:

John, I did the short poll and signed the petition ~ to me, Citizens United is the single-most damaging USSC decision ... maybe ever ~ certainly within my lifetime ~ and what is so deeply misguided in the decision is that corporations were handed expanded rights over individuals because there IS a limitation on what an individual can spend per election cycle ~

Sooz



There is no limit on how much an individual can spend in an election cycle.

Independent expenditures, which are the only expenditures affected by Citizens United, are not limited for individuals.  Only direct contributions by individuals to candidate committees, PACs and parties are limited, but contributions to those entities by corporations are BANNED.

So individuals still have greater latitude in campaign spending than do corporations following the Citizend United decision.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/11 4:02 pm • # 5 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Corporations and unions shouldn't be involved in political finances at all.
They aren't citizens.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/11 4:29 pm • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Thanks for the clarification, gop ~ but it's still not a level playing field ~ not many individuals can compete financially with mega corporations ~

I agree, oskar ~ I don't have a problem with corporations or unions "endorsing" a candidate to their members/customers ~ but neither should play a financial role ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/11 6:11 pm • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
sooz08 wrote:

John, I did the short poll and signed the petition ~ to me, Citizens United is the single-most damaging USSC decision ... maybe ever ~ certainly within my lifetime ~ and what is so deeply misguided in the decision is that corporations were handed expanded rights over individuals because there IS a limitation on what an individual can spend per election cycle ~

Sooz



There is no limit on how much an individual can spend in an election cycle.

Independent expenditures, which are the only expenditures affected by Citizens United, are not limited for individuals.  Only direct contributions by individuals to candidate committees, PACs and parties are limited, but contributions to those entities by corporations are BANNED.

So individuals still have greater latitude in campaign spending than do corporations following the Citizend United decision.

is it fair that the poor have no voice in government because money does all of the talking?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/10/11 3:00 am • # 8 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
As long as the bulk of the bribes money talks Republican, yes.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/10/11 3:42 am • # 9 
Ah but, they're poor by choice mac so they must be willing to accept the good with the bad, right?


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 9 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.