• 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!

Sanders/Citizen United Amendment Proposal

Citizens United isn't about money in politics? Really?

It's about a film critical of Hillary Clinton, the prohibition of it being aired, and how that violates the First Amendment.
 
It's about a film critical of Hillary Clinton, the prohibition of it being aired, and how that violates the First Amendment.

What? A film critical of Hillary Clinton? I think we're talking about two different things altogether.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark U.S. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.[2][3]

source
 
What? A film critical of Hillary Clinton? I think we're talking about two different things altogether.



source

Wow. If this is the first you're hearing about the film critical of Hillary Clinton, you have never, ever read Citizens United, nor looked into it with any depth whatsoever.

That's what the case was about. Even Wikipedia will tell you that, if you actually read the (lengthy!) entry past the first paragraph.
 
Harshaw:

If the film about Mrs. Clinton was purposely critical of her record and character and if its release date was timed to happen 30 days before the election then does that not mean that such a film was intended to sway the nomination and voting process? If it was and the film was designed to harm Mrs. Clinton's public image then it was also designed to improve the chances of her rival candidates winning and thus was an effective endorsement. Thus it was a back-door boon to all candidates running against her. The intent was to affect the outcome of a political process by hurting Mrs. Clinton's public persona and thus was an de facto endorsement of all other candidates as an anybody-but-Clinton public relations vehicle. Thus it seems pretty clear that the film was designed to help the campaigns of all her opponents and thus was a de facto endorsement of them all but Mrs. Clinton (anybody-but-Clinton). Having read both the Majority and Minority opinions and Justice Thomas' variation on a theme I was struck by what I saw as tortured legal logic and legal gymnastics. I think the decision was more of an after-the-fact justification to reassert monied interests ability to interfere in a democratic process than a sound defence of democratic and constitutional principles. The partisan nature of the 5-4 decision reinforces my suspicions.

Corporations and other legal persons already had a route for the spending of money in order to affect and effect the political process through political action committees. Why did they need more latitude to affect, effect and quite possibly corrupt future elections? I don't see the logic of the decision in a democracy event if that democracy is a representative democracy and a republic. To me this seems like legitimising possible political corruption and thus the spending of money by legal persons which are legal fictions for the purposes of swaying electoral results should not be protected speech because it poses a real threat of harming democracy and in the long-run harming the principles upon which the American republic was built. "We the People ...". Not we the Bank-notes.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Having read both the Majority and Minority opinions and Justice Thomas' variation on a theme I was struck by what I saw as tortured legal logic and legal gymnastics. I think the decision was more of an after-the-fact justification to reassert monied interests ability to interfere in a democratic process than a sound defence of democratic and constitutional principles. The partisan nature of the 5-4 decision reinforces my suspicions.

Your characterization of the reasoning of the majority decision is not accurate, and construing the decision as a post hoc justification seems misplaced. The legal logic of the majority decision is sound, and I am confining the remark to the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause (the case has a lot of moving parts, several Holdings. I limit my remarks to the free speech clause and the identity of the speaker).

A corporation is a collective group of people. A human being is required for a corporation to speak. When a corporation is said to be speaking, a person, or persons, are engaged in the speech, which means a person, a human being, or persons, are speaking. The expenditure of money can be expressive speech. The expenditure of money to make a movie, distribute the movie, is a particular kind of expressive speech, specifically expressive speech pertaining to political speech. The 1st Amendment does not protect speech on the basis of the identity of the human speaker. "Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765, 784 (1978) . As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content. For a greater exposition of collective speech, speech by people, humans beings, when collective speech is involved, see Scalia's concurrence.

The logic above is not "tortured legal logic and legal gymnastics."

The partisan nature of the 5-4 decision reinforces my suspicions

I have an alternate explanation. The 5-4 decision reflects that regardless of how strong the logic of the majority is in regards to the free speech right of the people of a corporation, the 4 dissenters were never inclined to agree.
 
if its release date was timed to happen 30 days before the election

Well, what's interesting about the timing is that at the time HRC was involved in a primary battle with then-Senator Obama. So now, let's see, David Bossie can't be critical of Hillary Clinton because the Democrats are having a private election?

If it was and the film was designed to harm Mrs. Clinton's public image then it was also designed to improve the chances of her rival candidates winning and thus was an effective endorsement

Well, I'm not sure Citizens United could be said to be endorsing Obama of course, but generally I would say you are correct of course.

But now let's take it back one election cycle to Bush/Kerry when Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11.

Well, Michael Moore is Michael Moore and David Bossie and David Bossie and unlike David Bossie, Michael Moore actually knows how to make movies and that's a corporation too, Dog Eat Dog, Inc. and his purpose was to defeat George W Bush. Now, of course he did release the movie and naturally Bush II was not subject to a primary challenge, but what if he had been? And of course the FEC's rules made sure that Fahrenheit 9/11 came out I think beyond the 60 day window, or 30 window?

Let's just look at this as a free press case for a second. The right criticizing, not just a candidate for public office, but in the case of Bush II and HRC, seated members of the government, falls within the very CORE of the freedom of the press. Would it be constitutional to prohibit a media corporation doing such things? Of course not. No one disputes that corporations like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times can editorialize. Other groups performing that same function have the same immunity from government even if they are not part of what we would call the main stream media. Who's to say who's in the media or not in the media? The FEC?

David Bossie actually was making a point by making the movie Hillary beyond simply criticizing Hillary Clinton.

Bossie had essentially argued in 2004 that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie was a campaign ad.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3023147

And then the FEC dismissed the complaint:

https://www.rcfp.org/fec-dismisses-fahrenheit-911-complaint/

Well, that means Bossie should be able to do the same thing, right?

Well, yes, it does actually!
 
Last edited:
A better amendment would be to create term limits for members of Congress. I’m sure Senator Sanders can support that one.

That would create a bunch of rookies coming in every 4-8 years with little experience. Experience usually makes a person better at their job.

In essence, we already have term limits, they are called elections.

We just need to clean up the election process, to make it more accessible and fair for more to participate. That refers to both the voters, candidates and Congress.
 
What you fail to understand, is the POTUS is the only elected office elected by indirect voting. All of your local government is elected via popular vote, you State government is elected via popular vote, your Fed. Senators and Representatives are elected via popular vote. So your statement is a fallacy.

And that needs to be changed as well. The EC was put in place basically to protect the slave states, along with other smaller considerations.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electoral-college-has-been-divisive-day-one-180961171/
 
If I am not mistaken, the means by which CU was able to create and distribute this film was by way of goods and services produced for a political action committee, which is a form of corporation, yes?

Am I correct in saying that this corporation acted and "spoke" the way a single solitary flesh and blood human person spoke?

Is any of that germaine to the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling?
 
If I am not mistaken, the means by which CU was able to create and distribute this film was by way of goods and services produced for a political action committee, which is a form of corporation, yes?

Am I correct in saying that this corporation acted and "spoke" the way a single solitary flesh and blood human person spoke?

Is any of that germaine to the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling?

The ruling is not at all dependent on the corporate form.

The basis of the ruling is that individuals do not give up their First Amendment rights because they choose to act in concert with other individuals. This reasoning applies to any kind of organization, not just corporations.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.

I would rather replace the First Amendment with an amendment that protects religious freedom and political dissent and debate, and nothing else. Money is not speech it is property. The American people should have access to more opinions, not more access to the Republican opinion that the rich deserve more wealth and power.

Burning the American flag contributes nothing to a political discussion. It angers people political activists should try to persuade. If the voters want to outlaw flag desecration they should have the power to do so. The same is true for pornography and obscenity. Issues like prayer and Bible reading in public school, manger scenes on the country court house, and so on should be decided by voters, not by judges.

I would like to outlaw private political contributions, and have political campaigns financed by the government. That is the way it is done in many democracies. It works well.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.

In 2016 Hillary was able to raise $1.2Billion which was less that Obama had raised in 2012. Big money has favored the Democrats for the past three election cycles. I am surprised that Bernie would be condemning his own party having used PACs to win 2 of 3.

Trump used $66 million of his own money. At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

If what Bernie says is true, the popular vote that Hillary won, may have been unduly influenced by super pac money. Trump had much less money to con the masses, via $billion in endless adds, dirt and spin. Hillary who had more PAC money could double down on dirt and gossip to get the popular vote among the masses. Trump had to use more intelligence and strategy; Electoral College. He could not keep up with the spin and con, that money can buy, using big Pac money. The masses like entertainment.

Bernie was different during his 2016 nomination race. He was more like Trump and depended on small donations. He lost due to Super Delegates which is owned by big money. But if he becomes the candidate for the DNC, he will change his tune, since the super pacs will become the majority of his funding, same as Obama and Hillary.

Big Money runs the DNC. He may be saying this now, based on the up coming DNC primaries, where some candidates will sell their souls to big money. Bernie may be trying to make the Democrats depend more on skill, than high priced con.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.

Our elections are based on money. Usually the candidate or party with the most money wins. The big exception was Hillary's loss to Trump. Hillary had 1.191 billion to Trump's 646.8 million.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Amazingly, the candidate with almost twice as much money lost. From 1980 through 2012, the presidential candidate with the most money won. The largest disparity in money was the 2008 election where Obama 980 million to McCain's 380 million.

House election rates go to the candidates with the most money. Election rate or percentage for the candidate that had the most money in the House.
2018 88.8%
2016 95.4%
2014 93.5%
2012 93.6%
2010 85.6%
2008 92.0%
2006 93.3%
2004 97.5%
2002 91.0%
2000 94.9%

Did Money Win? • OpenSecrets

Fact is both parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. This is where both parties gets their tens of millions of dollars for their campaigns and running their party organizations. Those organization invest/donate heavily in candidates that are favored or are incumbents. An example is Wall Street which gave 117 million to Hillary, 38 million to Trump. Lobbyist 44 million to Hillary, 2 million to Trump. Had Trump been favored or seen leading in the polls, I'm sure those figures would have been much closer or even in Trump's favor.

This last midterm, 2018 Democrats in the house had and spent 1.016 billion to the republicans 661 million. Senate in 2018 Democrats 599 million to the republicans 456 million.

Want to know whom will most likely win the elections, follow the money.
 
Yes, part of the problem of constructing an amendment is going to be crafting it so that it actually overturns Citizens United. If it does, then it's a slam-dunk partial repeal of the First Amendment.

It will go nowhere near the first amendment. All the amendment has to say is that political contributions, say over $1000 must be public in formation and that no foreign money is allowed. Citizens United hides foreign money and corporate money thereby blinding the public to who is influencing/ buying candidates and policy legislation. THAT shouldn't be allowed in an open transparent democratic system like ours.
 
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tweeted:



Assignment:

Construct an amendment which "overturns" Citizens United but doesn't also partially repeal the First Amendment.

Original intent.

The constitution is a "tyranny defense system". The founders went down the list of tyrant tools and denied them to our government.

Propaganda, the science of persuasion, is the primary tool by which every modern tyranny has been established and maintained.

Therefore, while broadly protecting speech, I'm quite sure they would have qualified the first amendment had they foreseen the use of speech itself to manipulate.
 
I would rather replace the First Amendment with an amendment that protects religious freedom and political dissent and debate, and nothing else. Money is not speech it is property. The American people should have access to more opinions, not more access to the Republican opinion that the rich deserve more wealth and power.

Burning the American flag contributes nothing to a political discussion. It angers people political activists should try to persuade. If the voters want to outlaw flag desecration they should have the power to do so. The same is true for pornography and obscenity. Issues like prayer and Bible reading in public school, manger scenes on the country court house, and so on should be decided by voters, not by judges.

I would like to outlaw private political contributions, and have political campaigns financed by the government. That is the way it is done in many democracies. It works well.

It's speech that angers people that needs to be protected. People hate flag-burning because it's a display of disrespect. Even disrespecting the whole country should not be illegal. Speech that the majority of people deems acceptable need not be protected. I also feel that public schools should not be an exception.

Violations of the seperation of church and state are off the table. This isn't something that should be voted on by illiterate theocrats who've never read the constitution, nor understand how and why freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

I, however, agree with your opinion on the absolutely abysmal CU decision. Money is not speech--it's power. You can buy influence with that power, but it's actually the billboards and ads that the money buys that's the expression of ideas/and not the money, itself. One facilitates the other, but they are not one and the same. I don't think that the freedom of speech should be stretched to allow the candidate with the most financial backing to be able to drown out the competition.

I don't even want candidates funding their own campaign.
 
Last edited:
Original intent.

The constitution is a "tyranny defense system". The founders went down the list of tyrant tools and denied them to our government.

Propaganda, the science of persuasion, is the primary tool by which every modern tyranny has been established and maintained.

Therefore, while broadly protecting speech, I'm quite sure they would have qualified the first amendment had they foreseen the use of speech itself to manipulate.

I am 100% sure they were very, very well-aware of the use of speech to "manipulate," considering how many of them were practitioners of the art.

But this does not answer the question posed, regardless.
 
In 2016 Hillary was able to raise $1.2Billion which was less that Obama had raised in 2012. Big money has favored the Democrats for the past three election cycles. I am surprised that Bernie would be condemning his own party having used PACs to win 2 of 3.

Trump used $66 million of his own money. At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

If what Bernie says is true, the popular vote that Hillary won, may have been unduly influenced by super pac money. Trump had much less money to con the masses, via $billion in endless adds, dirt and spin. Hillary who had more PAC money could double down on dirt and gossip to get the popular vote among the masses. Trump had to use more intelligence and strategy; Electoral College. He could not keep up with the spin and con, that money can buy, using big Pac money. The masses like entertainment.

Bernie was different during his 2016 nomination race. He was more like Trump and depended on small donations. He lost due to Super Delegates which is owned by big money. But if he becomes the candidate for the DNC, he will change his tune, since the super pacs will become the majority of his funding, same as Obama and Hillary.

Big Money runs the DNC. He may be saying this now, based on the up coming DNC primaries, where some candidates will sell their souls to big money. Bernie may be trying to make the Democrats depend more on skill, than high priced con.

I don't know if it would be accurate to assume that the Dems are more entrenched in big money by looking at the last few presidential elections, but nor do I care enough to die on that hill. I would rather the opposition win democratically, rather than see a coronation hosted by corporate America.

I will be very dissapointed if Bernie caves in the general, just as I am with Warren's admission that she doesn't think she can win in the general without taking PAC-money--I believe that she just killed her campaign. I genuinely feel that Sanders is a man of integrity, demonstrated by the MSM's many failed attempts at goading him into horse-race politics, but I fear that he might end up prioritizing defeating Donald Trump over his campaign-finance convictions.
 
It's speech that angers people that needs to be protected. People hate flag-burning because it's a display of disrespect. Even disrespecting the whole country should not be illegal. Speech that the majority of people deems acceptable need not be protected. I also feel that public schools should not be an exception.

I was an anti war activist during the War in Vietnam. I attended demonstrations where the American flag was burned, people waved the Viet Cong flag. People chanted frequently obscene slogans expressing hostility for the United States and support for the Vietnamese Communists.There was vandalism. Traffic was disrupted.

I believe that sort of thing prolonged the War in Vietnam. It angered voters into voting for hawks. By 1969 polls indicated that large majorities of Americans thought "student disturbances" were a major threat to the United States. By 1971 most Americans disliked the War in Vietnam and hated those who protested against the war. That contributed to Richard Nixon's landslide victory in 1972. As a result of that victory the War continued until 1975.

The purpose of political dissent is not self expression. The purpose is to persuade people. You cannot persuade people by angering them.

If it had not been for disruptive anti war demonstrations and the black ghetto riots a Democrat dove would have been elected president in 1968. The war would have ended much sooner with a negotiated settlement that would have allowed the U.S. to evacuate Vietnamese who did not want to live under Communism. Instead the boat people were abandoned to Thai pirates after the Communist victory. Many Vietnamese women fleeing the Communists were raped by the pirates.
 
Violations of the seperation of church and state are off the table. This isn't something that should be voted on by illiterate theocrats who've never read the constitution, nor understand how and why freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

A purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent the creation of an established church in the United States. The terms "separation of church and state" and "wall of separation" appear nowhere in the Constitution or in the amendments.

During the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century most children learned to read using McGuffey Readers. McGuffey Readers were thoroughly Christian. During this time very few Americans thought that violated the First Amendment. If public opinion changed, that change should have been decided by the voters, and not by judges.

--------

Gallup, SEPTEMBER 25, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-one percent of Americans support allowing daily prayer to be spoken in the classroom.

In U.S., Support for Daily Prayer in Schools Dips Slightly
 
Last edited:
I am 100% sure they were very, very well-aware of the use of speech to "manipulate," considering how many of them were practitioners of the art.

But this does not answer the question posed, regardless.

They clearly did not see it developing into a science that is ubiquitous in business, marketing and politics.

There are already limits on speech, especially when it involves fraud.

Which much of persuasive messaging is.
 
I was an anti war activist during the War in Vietnam. I attended demonstrations where the American flag was burned, people waved the Viet Cong flag. People chanted frequently obscene slogans expressing hostility for the United States and support for the Vietnamese Communists.There was vandalism. Traffic was disrupted.

I believe that sort of thing prolonged the War in Vietnam. It angered voters into voting for hawks. By 1969 polls indicated that large majorities of Americans thought "student disturbances" were a major threat to the United States. By 1971 most Americans disliked the War in Vietnam and hated those who protested against the war. That contributed to Richard Nixon's landslide victory in 1972. As a result of that victory the War continued until 1975.

The purpose of political dissent is not self expression. The purpose is to persuade people. You cannot persuade people by angering them.

If it had not been for disruptive anti war demonstrations and the black ghetto riots a Democrat dove would have been elected president in 1968. The war would have ended much sooner with a negotiated settlement that would have allowed the U.S. to evacuate Vietnamese who did not want to live under Communism. Instead the boat people were abandoned to Thai pirates after the Communist victory. Many Vietnamese women fleeing the Communists were raped by the pirates.

While there is no way to know for sure at this point, I think the anti war demonstrations of the '60s helped end American involvement in Vietnam. Had the young men being drafted gone quietly off to war, and their peers left behind not spoken out, the war might have lasted a lot longer than it did.


But, that's just speculation. As I said, there is no way of knowing.


One thing that is for sure: Had the government followed the Constitution and demanded a declaration of war or a withdrawal of troops, the war would have been over much sooner, and Vietnam would have been spared a lot of bloodshed.
 
A purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent the creation of an established church in the United States. The terms "separation of church and state" and "wall of separation" appear nowhere in the Constitution or in the amendments.

During the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century most children learned to read using McGuffey Readers. McGuffey Readers were thoroughly Christian. During this time very few Americans thought that violated the First Amendment. If public opinion changed, that change should have been decided by the voters, and not by judges.

--------

Gallup, SEPTEMBER 25, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-one percent of Americans support allowing daily prayer to be spoken in the classroom.

In U.S., Support for Daily Prayer in Schools Dips Slightly

Actually, it was Thomas Jefferson who first used the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson was right. A wall of separation is necessary to a free society.
 
They clearly did not see it developing into a science that is ubiquitous in business, marketing and politics.

Right, the people who wrote the Federalist Papers had no idea what "marketing" and "persuasion" is.

Sometimes it seems like people think the Founders were Neanderthals who barked at the Moon. They weren't. They were some of the smartest men who ever lived.

There are already limits on speech, especially when it involves fraud.

Which much of persuasive messaging is.

"Persuasive messaging" isn't "fraud." That's nonsense.

But I see you're looking for excuses to limit free speech. Not even "money in politics," but speech.
 
The proposed Sanders Amendment is a solution in search of a problem. It fails to recognize the largest contributors to every Federal, and state election are public sector employees unions, their bundlers, and their PACs. The second largest bloc of campaign contributions is Education Unions, if you want to make a differentiation between the SEIU and the National Education Association. The incestuous relationship between Congressmen receiving money from those individuals who are benefiting from budget decisions should be alarming to everyone.

Corporation donations are a small fraction of contributions spent by public employees. Citizen United simply allowed corporations to spend as much as Public Sector Employees. I am not sure how that supposed threat rises to the level of requiring an amendment.
 
The proposed Sanders Amendment is a solution in search of a problem. It fails to recognize the largest contributors to every Federal, and state election are public sector employees unions, their bundlers, and their PACs. The second largest bloc of campaign contributions is Education Unions, if you want to make a differentiation between the SEIU and the National Education Association. The incestuous relationship between Congressmen receiving money from those individuals who are benefiting from budget decisions should be alarming to everyone.

Corporation donations are a small fraction of contributions spent by public employees. Citizen United simply allowed corporations to spend as much as Public Sector Employees. I am not sure how that supposed threat rises to the level of requiring an amendment.

Your very first post, and already you're posting unsupported opinion as fact. Welcome to the forum! You'll do well here.
 
Back
Top Bottom