• 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!

SHould we end "Citizens United" by the court or amendment?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.
 
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.


Trump spent very little money and beat out candidates with 10 times as much money.
 
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

I started a thread here for earnest suggestions as to the wording of an amendment which would 1) actually overturn Citizens United, yet 2) would NOT act as a partial repeal of the First Amendment.

Sanders/Citizen United Amendment Proposal

You are welcome to make your suggestions.
 
Anyone who believes money is speech and who thinks that unlimited and opaque money in the political system leads to anything other than bad things is blind.

It is nothing more than legalized corruption.
 
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

Let me know when you have Mad Maxine on board...then we can talk.

Maxine Waters: California Should Have More Say Over Primary Process Because of Its Rich Donors and Fancy Parties

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) said that California should have more influence over the Democratic primary process because the state has so many wealthy donors.

“We have candidates who fly out to Los Angeles from everywhere to raise money,” Waters said Thursday on CNBC. “You would have two, three, four at a time in Beverly Hills having dinners and some of our contributors, who are very rich, were holding fancy parties, trying to accommodate the requests for donations and contributions.”

“The thinking is that if we are supplying tremendous dollars to candidates, we ought to have more say,” she added.

Maxine Waters: California Should Have More Say Over Primary Process Because of Its Rich Donors & Fancy Parties
 
Thanks to the Supreme Court it would have to be an Amendment... and it would still end in disaster.
 
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

If that were true, Hillary would have won the largest elector vote count in history.

Between her and the 24/7 MSM spending every hour of every day dedicated to hate Trump for a year prior to the election taking up BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars in media resources not to mention the countries massive celebrity constant hate theme to profess Trump is literally Satan, If money could buy an election, It would have happened.

Bloomburg money won't even come close
 
i'd support an amendment. money isn't speech, and corporations are not citizens.
 
i'd support an amendment. money isn't speech, and corporations are not citizens.

The Court in Citizens United didn't rule either of those things.
 
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

You want to make it illegal for unions to make campaign contributions? Are you sure?
 
i'd support an amendment. money isn't speech, and corporations are not citizens.

When a citizen donates to a political campaign, it isn't speech?
 
Thanks to the Supreme Court it would have to be an Amendment... and it would still end in disaster.

Agreed....It pretty much has to be an Amendment now and it would have to be a pretty tightly written Amendment. Congress does not specialize in tightly written Amendments, OBVIOUSLY. But that is what it will take.

Is there a chance that a case could be flied that was narrowly aimed at campaign contributions as political speech and the lunacy of a Corporation being considered the same as a citizen in that specific circumstance? Yea there is probably a chance. But a lot would have to go right for it to get to the point where the SC was forced to decide if they would take it up and then flip on that narrowly defined point. If they didn't flip but supported their Citizens United decision in this narrow space it would make it even harder to cobble an Amendment to deal with this mess.

Probably the better bet would be a narrowly written Amendment aimed specifically at the whole notion of a Corporation having the same Rights as a Citizen, as weird a "can't see the forest for the trees" decision as the SC has ever made.
 
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

so if you want no corporate money...which is your point i assume

what other money do you want taken out of politics?

to me, if you reverse Citizens United you have to completely take ALL MONEY out of politics they way it is done now

from unions, pacs, superpacs, individuals, companies, EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING

only money allowed would come from individuals then, be sent through on of the big 5 accounting firms, and then sent anonymously to the local/state/national figure they want to support...per person amount limit is 3k per politician

if you want to give to "your party" it again is anonymous....and you can donate up to 25k annually to any party annually, which the party can then dole out again through the big 5 firm to any candidate they want to support

no company/orgainzation/person can send money directly to a candidate...PERIOD
 
A corporation is made up of individuals. Those individuals can contribute to a campaign. If the corporation also contributes, those individuals have contributed twice. Should not be allowed. Same for unions or the Bernie Sanders super PAC.

Only let individuals contribute, and limit the amount. Then the most popular candidates will have the most money, and the rich won't have an advantage.
 
How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

The irony is the court was bought to approve CU.

How to Bribe a Supreme Court Justice | HuffPost
 
When a citizen donates to a political campaign, it isn't speech?

A corporation isn't a citizen, and money isn't speech.
 
A corporation isn't a citizen, and money isn't speech.

Donations are a form of expression, thus speech.

Do you oppose unions making donations to political campaigns?
 
A corporation isn't a citizen, and money isn't speech.

Not to mention that at the time of our founding corporations (what few there were) were forbidden from taking any part in politics.
 
Agreed....It pretty much has to be an Amendment now and it would have to be a pretty tightly written Amendment. Congress does not specialize in tightly written Amendments, OBVIOUSLY. But that is what it will take.

Is there a chance that a case could be flied that was narrowly aimed at campaign contributions as political speech and the lunacy of a Corporation being considered the same as a citizen in that specific circumstance? Yea there is probably a chance. But a lot would have to go right for it to get to the point where the SC was forced to decide if they would take it up and then flip on that narrowly defined point. If they didn't flip but supported their Citizens United decision in this narrow space it would make it even harder to cobble an Amendment to deal with this mess.

Probably the better bet would be a narrowly written Amendment aimed specifically at the whole notion of a Corporation having the same Rights as a Citizen, as weird a "can't see the forest for the trees" decision as the SC has ever made.

The Constitution restrains government, not the people.
 
I listened in class.

So you're making **** up. That's what I thought.

The reality is that there was no restriction on this kind of spending until the 20th Century.

I bet yoi don't even know what the Citizens United ruling even says. It doesn't legalize outside groups to coordinate with political campaigns.
 
Donations are a form of expression, thus speech.

Do you oppose unions making donations to political campaigns?

unions aren't citizens either. either way, i didn't notice that it was you who quoted me. peace.
 
unions aren't citizens either. either way, i didn't notice that it was you who quoted me. peace.

So, no one outside of political campaigns should be allowed to participate in political speech?
 
Back
Top Bottom