• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Deutch Presents Amendment To Ban Corporate Money From Politics

Thus why I used the "correct me if I'm wrong" part. I don't know, but iirc Obama was talking of how he wanted illegal aliens to be able to vote, which would undoubtedly lead to a swell in voters for the democratic side.

You are wrong. He has not said or advocated any such thing. And that should be obvious. It's clearly just another idiot rightwing urban myth about Obama.
 
If this is in opposition to Citizen's United, it's either idiotic grandstanding or Deutch has no idea what he's talking about. Corporate donations to campaigns are still illegal. Citizens United only dealt with corporations' ability to advocate or criticize certain candidates. Since the First Amendment is a negative right, it doesn't matter whether or not corporations have the same rights as everyone else or not. The Amendment only says what government is not allowed to do, including restricting speech. Citizens United would still probably stand. This proposed amendment does not do anything more than what a generous interpretations of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses already do.
 
Thus why I used the "correct me if I'm wrong" part. I don't know, but iirc Obama was talking of how he wanted illegal aliens to be able to vote, which would undoubtedly lead to a swell in voters for the democratic side.



I don't know for sure what the facts are. It's doubtful that any of us have the real facts. I would say I've heard that more corporations donate to the right for elections than to the left, however unions do the same thing the left.



It would seem reasonable, but then again I don't have the knowledge to weigh all of this in the balance. How do you think banning both $$$ sources would effect elections, CT?

Both sides take corporate money.

They just get it from different "teams".

Highly portable capital tends to back republicans.

Capital that depends on American paychecks for its profits tends to back dems.

Oil is an international market. Tending republican.

Insurance companies depend on paychecks. Tending dem.

Follow the money. Its ALWAYS the answer nowadays.
 
Did not know that.

In light of that I guess I don't have a problem with it, though I don't know what other angles can be played from this banning.

Which party would benefit the most, I wonder, seeing as a lot of liberals/socialists/progressives seem to be enthralled with this idea.

An interesting thing I've noted is that a standard response from the right to discussion of this issue is "would you be ok if union money, NAACP, etc was also banned?

Notice how many on the left say "yeah. Them too."
 
Democrats love sticking their tongues in the assholes of business and tossing their salad just as much as the republicans do. The whole democrats are for the poor working class and republicans are for the rich is nothing more than just a myth.

Yeah, its just different businesses.

It is in the interest of an auto insurance company that people be able to afford cars. Therefore, they tend to back dems.

That's why the ACA was nothing but the abolition of two practices that the public was going to demand they stop anyway(pre-existing conditions and dropping customers as soon as they get sick, by any means necessary) in exchange for millions of new customers from the mandate.
 
So do you want to limit the amount anyone can spend on a lawyer so that trials are fair too?

Might help, considering the disparity in justice received by a poor kid and a rich kid arrested for identical crimes.
 
Not if it was passed as a Constitutional Amendment.

SC ruled that corporate donations are protected under the 1st Amendment. IMO, it's a bad idea to start passing constitutional amendments that override the 1st Amendment.
 
Read more @: Rep. Deutch Presents Amendment To Ban Corporate Money From Politics | OlogyCan this please get passed? I mean please for the sake of god! I gurantee however its probably going to get held up by dems, and republicans alike, but please if their is a god please come down and somehow pass this :mrgreen:

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Is there anything in the amendment about union money going to political campaigns? If there isn't, then there is something very, very wrong here.
 
SC ruled that corporate donations are protected under the 1st Amendment. IMO, it's a bad idea to start passing constitutional amendments that override the 1st Amendment.

It didn't rule that. Corporate donations to candidates are still illegal. Corporate spending on speech is what was ruled legal.
 
Might help, considering the disparity in justice received by a poor kid and a rich kid arrested for identical crimes.

How much would you limit it to? How would you decide when one side has spent "enough?" Would a lawyer have to just stop showing up in court when he hit the limit?
 
I would have to consider voting no (if I had a vote) because he felt he had to make it an acronym.

That said, it would likely pass if it ever got out of Congress which is unlikely.

Making a trendy acronym is a cheap/useful tactic. If you can't beat them, join um. :p (PATRIOT act *cough cough*)

I wonder if the content of the amendment is solid or a pretty packaged trap?
 
Back
Top Bottom