Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out

[Avatar4321]

I get it, you are attacking because Democrats proposed this while contradicting yourself.

No. She is attacking it because only a complete moron would think that Congress, the President, or any person who is corrupt because of "too much money" in politics would somehow become less corrupt if you allowed them to eliminate the money their opposition can spend.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's regulation of speech - fascism, in other words. Only a fascist would defend it.

Shut the fuck up using big words you don't know the meaning of. It has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is concerned with the establishment of the state as the highest creation of mankind, linking national and ethnic identity into one, purging the society of ethnicities that are deemed responsible for the country's ills, militarism and war as a means to maintain national identity, vitality, and pride, and corporatism as an economic system.

For someone who bitches and complains all the time about Dems and liberals and anyone who doesn't agree with you being on the far left, you sure are making a huge ass out of yourself by calling them fascists, since fascism is a far right ideology. Leave the SAT words for the grown-ups who know what they mean and stick to Dr. Seuss, mkay?

 

[Inthemiddle]

How the hell anyone can say it's a 'great idea' when they clearly haven't read the damned bill is beyond me. It might be an idea if people learned to investigate what they're supporting before they support it. The OP is a dumbass.

And what makes you think people haven't read the bill?

 

[konradv]

So, you think that Congress should regulate itself? Fucking idiot. Have we not seen enough evidence to confirm that Congress are not honest enough to self regulate? How fucking deluded are you?

This is the answer from the right wing that thinks that all our problems would go away if only business would be allowed to self regulate...

That isnt even close to the message.

Have your crystal ball looked at..............................

This isn't even close to a response.

Have your political hypocrisy looked at.



So much for your pea shooter!

 

[blastoff]

Free airtime will help get the money out.

Great idea. What's next...McDonalds, etc. have to provide free food to hungry people?

 

[California Girl]

This is the answer from the right wing that thinks that all our problems would go away if only business would be allowed to self regulate...

I've never supported too much 'self-regulation'. Personally, I think it's a road to hell. While I am sure that the Democrats would love to see 'self regulation' for congress...they, along with the Republican, have proved consistently that they cannot be trusted.

I'm all for getting corporate funding out of our system... as long as that includes the unions, and other 'community' based funders too. But I know the Democrats too well to believe that this bill would be yet another clusterfuck that benefits them and them alone.

I get it, you are attacking because Democrats proposed this while contradicting yourself.

I'm attacking you for being a moron. That's reasonable. You read an article and post it and it.... without even bothering to find out what's in the bill. How fucking stupid is that?

 

[Inthemiddle]

But I know the Democrats too well to believe that this bill would be yet another clusterfuck that benefits them and them alone.

Okay, I can almost get on board with what you're saying here. But I'm curious....do you have an equal distrust of the GOP? For example, perhaps you've seen the thread discussing the FL GOP's recent move to reduce the early voting period and to specifically eliminate Sunday from that period. Some have argued that this appears to be an attempt to prevent/minimize Obama from energizing his base to get out to vote, like he did in his Souls to the Polls maneuver in Florida in 2008. Others have argued that it's BS to suggest that that bill would effect the Dems negatively in comparison to the GOP. So, seeing as you've noted your feelings that the Dems are most likely going to only pass things that benefit them and only them, are you equally distrustful of the GOP? Would you conclude that the FL GOP would only pass their bill if it benefited them and only them? Or are you completely partisan on all of this?

 

[Full-Auto]

This is the answer from the right wing that thinks that all our problems would go away if only business would be allowed to self regulate...

That isnt even close to the message.

Have your crystal ball looked at..............................

This isn't even close to a response.

Have your political hypocrisy looked at.



So much for your pea shooter!

At least you admitted it went over your head.

There might be some use for you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You read an article and post it and it.... without even bothering to find out what's in the bill.

How do you know he didn't read the bill? And on that subject, have you read the bill?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Why is it suddenly so quiet in here? Did I ruin the mood with rational discourse? My bad.

 

[Dragon]

Why is it suddenly so quiet in here? Did I ruin the mood with rational discourse? My bad.

LOL yeah, this is USMB, after all.

No one has read the bill because the source link did not present its text. It did present some language from it: a constitutional amendment that would grant Congress the power to regulate the “raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns” and “allow states to regulate such spending at their level.”

This is quite broad, and cuts right through the Citizens United decision. "Raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns" does not specify by whom; this would allow Congress to regulate not only direct contributions to candidates or parties, but also third-party spending on campaigns. It would obviate any perverse First Amendment objections to such regulation.

In itself it would not regulate any spending, leaving that to acts of Congress rather than constitutional amendments. The Constitution should not go into such details of legislation but should establish the broad premises of governance.

It's obvious that what this represents is the Democrats attempting to gain support from Occupy. It's also quite unlikely that Congress will pass this amendment with the necessary 2/3 majority. So this really is an empty gesture, costing the Democrats nothing. I suspect it will be necessary to call a constitutional convention at some point and bypass Congress altogether.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No one has read the bill because the source link did not present its text.

Yes it does. But I'll give it to you here.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

Article--

Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and speding of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limints on--

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.


Section 2. A state shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limints on--

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.


Section 3. Congress shall have power ti impliement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It's obvious that what this represents is the Democrats attempting to gain support from Occupy.

Campaign finance has been on the table for a long time, with bipartisan support. But doing it without running into constitutional problems has been difficult to impossible. It's a logical step that since there are so many constitutional problems that arise when attempting to enact campaign finance, that we look to amend the constitution to secure that ability for the legislature.

It's also quite unlikely that Congress will pass this amendment with the necessary 2/3 majority.

Eh, McCain Feingold had 2/3 support in the Senate and almost 2/3 in the House. I think that some persuasive speaking could convince enough lawmakers to pass the bill and let the states decide.

 

[konradv]

I suspect it will be necessary to call a constitutional convention at some point and bypass Congress altogether.

I think we're going to have to. Obama's doing it and the country seems to approve. They're going to have to show us something or that majority the Reps have may evaporate.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I didn't say that, it was a quotation error.

 

[American Horse]

This is a "show bill" to make it look like the Senate is actually doing something, all while they ignore voluminous legislation originating in the house. They can do this thanks to our Derelict Fifth Columnist Media.

 

[Flaylo]

You read an article and post it and it.... without even bothering to find out what's in the bill.

How do you know he didn't read the bill? And on that subject, have you read the bill?

She's just trolling, trying to stir the shit pot because she is unable to debate anything.

 

[del]

Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News

Why not? I think its a great idea.

you answered your own question there, ace.

 

[Warrior102]

You read an article and post it and it.... without even bothering to find out what's in the bill.

How do you know he didn't read the bill? And on that subject, have you read the bill?

She's just trolling, trying to stir the shit pot because she is unable to debate anything.

You have the debate skills of TruthDon'tMatter

And you make a silly statement like this?

LOL

 

[MiddleClass]

Why would any Good American in the Middle Class disagree with this Constitutional Amendment?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trying to keep money out of politics if like trying to keep sex out of bordellos