Rep. Deutch Presents Amendment To Ban Corporate Money From Politics

[TheDemSocialist]

Representative Ted Deutch (D - FL) announced an amendment earlier this week that seeks to ban corporations from making political contributions. The The Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment would explicitly state that corporations do not have the same rights as person under the Constitution, that corporations are subject to regulation under Congress, that corporations cannot make political donations, and that Congress will have the power to set limits on all campaign contributions and expenditures. In case the name wasn't enough of a hint, Deutch proposed this amendment specifically to appeal to the Occupy protesters, saying, "Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people."
In theory, the amendment could be a very effective measure in reducing corporate contributions to elections, but that is somewhat dependent on how it is interpreted by the courts and subsequent laws.

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?

 

[1Perry]

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.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The law would violate a recent Supreme Court ruling so I don't see the point in trying to pass such a law before the balance of the court has changed.

 

[1Perry]

The law would violate a recent Supreme Court ruling so I don't see the point in trying to pass such a law before the balance of the court has changed.

Not if it was passed as a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[GreenvilleGrows]

Sounds great at first glance - although ALL organizations should be banned from donating. Eligable voters only. Organizations can still lobby people to donate - that ought to be plenty.

How do you pronounce his name?

 

[ksu_aviator]

Not if it was passed as a Constitutional Amendment.

Ah, I misread the article. I thought he was proposing changing the Florida constitution.

 

[Wake]

Sounds like a great idea, if we also ban all union money from politics.

 

[Paschendale]

This would be fantastic. Too dangerous to many politicians' paydays, however.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I would have to consider voting no (if I had a vote) because he felt he had to make it an acronym.

LOL. Good popint

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

The people who have the power to change these things are the ones who are benefiting from the broken system.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Sounds like a great idea, if we also ban all union money from politics.

I'd like them to ban political party money from politics.

The bill seems to just ban "for profit" corporations.
It really won't end up doing a darn thing except lead to the creation of a lot of new non-profits to lobby the govt.

 

[1Perry]

I'd like them to ban political party money from politics.

The bill seems to just ban "for profit" corporations.
It really won't end up doing a darn thing except lead to the creation of a lot of new non-profits to lobby the govt.

Good point. I'm not picking on the example I use, it's just the first example that comes to mind.

Right now just the opposite is the law. Non profits are restricted concerning political spending. Planned Parenthood got around this by creating a PAC. As you note, corporations would have to be allowed to do the same thing or all would have to be banned.

 

[Thunder]

Congress represents the People, not non-human entities.

So sure, forbid corporations, unions, businesses, & non-profits from contributing to political campaigns.

 

[alexa]

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?

It won't do anything. The only way any sort of legitimacy is going to return to politics is to ban all contributions. Politics needs to be paid out of the public purse. It is the only possibility I can see to get it free of corruption and for the people.

 

[Thrilla]

yeah.. i'm gonna listen to a guy wanting to ban corporate money while he takes unions money....

nope...sorry, i'm not gonna join a two-faced schmuck in his efforts to kill an element of free speech.

 

[jamesrage]

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?

You have the right to peaceably assemble regardless if that assembly is a union,corporation, religious group,special interest group,political group or what ever. Your right to free speech,freedom of religious,free press and and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances do not go away just because you choose to peaceably assemble. Last time I checked the 1st amendment does not say you can only exercise only one of these rights at a time. I know lib-tards like to utter the BS line that corporations are not persons but the truth is corporations are an assembly of people. A corporation making a political contribution is no different than the occutards making a political contribution.

 

[haymarket]

Okay - so we ban corporate money. We ban union money. We ban all group money but individual citizen contributions.

How do we finance elections?

 

[American]

Okay - so we ban corporate money. We ban union money. We ban all group money but individual citizen contributions.

How do we finance elections?

I guess they'll have to come down in price.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You have the right to peaceably assemble regardless if that assembly is a union,corporation, religious group,special interest group,political group or what ever. Your right to free speech,freedom of religious,free press and and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances do not go away just because you choose to peaceably assemble. Last time I checked the 1st amendment does not say you can only exercise only one of these rights at a time. I know lib-tards like to utter the BS line that corporations are not persons but the truth is corporations are an assembly of people. A corporation making a political contribution is no different than the occutards making a political contribution.

A corporation is a separate entity from the people who are a part of it. That's exactly the point of a corporation.

There's no need to give these fictional entities the same rights as human beings. Removing privileges given to these artificial persons is not the same as denying the people who are a part of corporations their rights as individuals.

 

[DaveFagan]

A corporation is a separate entity from the people who are a part of it. That's exactly the point of a corporation.

There's no need to give these fictional entities the same rights as human beings. Removing privileges given to these artificial persons is not the same as denying the people who are a part of corporations their rights as individuals.

That is exactly correct and as long as the fox is guarding the henhouse this bill has no chance. Noone will vote against it, it will just disappear. Tabled, shuffled, never to appear again. Nothing to see here. That's because the people don't have any actual power.

 

[haymarket]

I guess they'll have to come down in price.

Practically speaking, how do you do that and still be able to communicate with the voter?

 

[jambalaya]

More idiotic grandstanding. Some measures to control corporate money is fine. A constitutional amendment is unnecessary.

 

[Wake]

To me it seems like another movement to cripple the elections in favor of the left. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn'nt there also a tried movement by the left to allow illegal aliens to vote, in which they'd primarily vote for the left?

 

[haymarket]

I know of no such movement or effort. Do you?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

To me it seems like another movement to cripple the elections in favor of the left. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn'nt there also a tried movement by the left to allow illegal aliens to vote, in which they'd primarily vote for the left?

I honestly doubt that "the right" has some monopoly on receiving lobbyists money, no matter what you and some democratic supporters would like for us to believe.

 

[CriticalThought]

Sounds like a great idea, if we also ban all union money from politics.

I agree. All union and corporate money should be banned from politics.