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

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Because it violates the First Amendment, Dear

 

[Warrior102]

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

I thought evil Ron Reagan eradicated the Middle Class, douche? You welfare cases have been re-born?

 

[MiddleClass]

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?

Caligirl has only one response to every post she disagrees with on this board: "You must be a Stupid F'n Moron", or something close to that. Caligirl has yet to ever offer an intelligent response. She is the self anointed AD Hominem Queen on this Message Board.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Stopping money and speech isn't the solution.

TERM LIMITS ARE

 

[Warrior102]

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?

Caligirl has only one response to every post she disagrees with on this board: "You must be a Stupid F'n Moron", or something close to that. Caligirl has yet to ever offer an intelligent response. She is the self anointed AD Hominem Queen on this Message Board.

Tissue?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Stopping money and speech isn't the solution.

TERM LIMITS ARE

While I support term limits, I don't think that that will really do anything to address the concerns of special interest financing of campaigns. In any event, and at the risk of derailing on a tangent, what kind of term limit structure would you propose?

 

[Flopper]

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

Why not? I think its a great idea.

The chance of passage is about zero. Corporate and special interest groups would never allow such an amendment to pass. I think Congress spends way too much time and effort trying to make political statements with legislation that has no chance of passage.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The chance of passage is about zero. Corporate and special interest groups would never allow such an amendment to pass. I think Congress spends way too much time and effort trying to make political statements with legislation that has no chance of passage.

Campaign finance laws have been passed by the Congress. I see no reason why this one can't pass as well. With enough "let the people decide through the state legislatures" pressure I think it could be passed out of Congress at least. Though, I think it would stand a better chance of passing if it was given a 10 year expiration, instead of 7 years.

 

[California Girl]

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?

Caligirl has only one response to every post she disagrees with on this board: "You must be a Stupid F'n Moron", or something close to that. Caligirl has yet to ever offer an intelligent response. She is the self anointed AD Hominem Queen on this Message Board.

When I see a post that actually needs an intelligent response, that's what they get. Unfortunately, those posts are few and far between. I don't pay much attention to any poster who regurgitates media crap without some logical comment to run along with that crap. It's not my problem that so few people are capable of reasonable comment.

But, making statements like "Caligirl has yet to ever offer an intelligent response" makes you the 'stupid f'n moron'. Because I have and I do... just not as often as I would like. But I put in what I feel the comment is worth. Most of the time, the comment is worth jack shit so that is what they get.

Fucking idiot.

 

[California Girl]

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?

I referred to the OP, idiot, not 'people'. The OP has a history of regurgitating crap and agreeing with it simply because it is from the Dems. He's an idiot.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I referred to the OP, idiot, not 'people'. The OP has a history of regurgitating crap and agreeing with it simply because it is from the Dems. He's an idiot.

So what makes you think the OP didn't read the bill? I don't understand you. At times you offer intelligent contributions to the debate. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. But then there are times like this where you come in with arguments that just make you look sensationalist, and you practically the exact same thing that you're complaining about from the OP here. You think he's just instantly agreeing with something the Dems are doing, because it's the Dems, and you accuse him of not knowing what the bill even says (with no evidence that he didn't read the bill). Well, you've made yourself look like you're against it just because it's the Dems. Again, I ask you, have you even read the bill? I don't think anyone in this thread even bothered to look at the link. It provides its own link directly to the bill. But everyone just assumed that the bill wasn't available to be read.

 

[Flopper]

The chance of passage is about zero. Corporate and special interest groups would never allow such an amendment to pass. I think Congress spends way too much time and effort trying to make political statements with legislation that has no chance of passage.

Campaign finance laws have been passed by the Congress. I see no reason why this one can't pass as well. With enough "let the people decide through the state legislatures" pressure I think it could be passed out of Congress at least. Though, I think it would stand a better chance of passing if it was given a 10 year expiration, instead of 7 years.

I certainly hope you are correct but I am very pessimistic about the chance of passage of any legislation that would reduce the power that corporations and special interest groups have on our government. This should be the most important issue for every voter.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Stopping money and speech isn't the solution.

TERM LIMITS ARE

While I support term limits, I don't think that that will really do anything to address the concerns of special interest financing of campaigns. In any event, and at the risk of derailing on a tangent, what kind of term limit structure would you propose?

3 or 4 year terms with the option to run again a decade after leaving office. That way good politicians with good ideas get more than one shot to have their ideas heard without risking them becoming lifetime leeches.

 

[konradv]

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

Because it violates the First Amendment, Dear

One constitutional amendment doesn't have precedent over another, unless it is written so. If the new amendment puts restrictions on some forms of speech, then it would supersede the broader interpretation of the first, just as the 21st superseded the 18th.