Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential

[LoneLaugher]

The decision lets this guy fund campaigns at will.

mid coast views: Who is Paul Singer and why is he trying to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

I wonder why he'd want a guy like Romney to be POTUS?

 

[Cowman]

This is going to be an awesome campaign season with the SuperPac ads that Colbert is going to run to make people bitch about the unlimited untraceable money.

I mean come on, unlimited, untraceable money. How ridiculous is that?

 

[whitehall]

The left celebrated when the Supreme Court found a "separation of church and state" that didn't exist in the Constitution and nobody on the left shed any tears when the Supreme Court found "a right to privacy" that didn't exist in the Constitution which opened the floodgates for the murder of the unborn. Now that the Supreme Court decided that money is speech the left wants to amend the Constitution. Live with it lefties.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Brilliant argument. Just brilliant.

The best of the right on this site.............ought to try harder.

 

[bripat9643]

The Supreme Court over stepped its authority on this matter and should have rejected hearing it.

ROFL! That is precisely the kind of law that the Supreme Court should rule on.

 

[daveman]

Brilliant argument. Just brilliant.

The best of the right on this site.............ought to try harder.

You might want to speak with your fellow lefties who complain about Citizens United allowing those evil corporations (groups of people banded together for a common purpose) but support unions (groups of people banded together for a common purpose) donating to campaigns.

 

[Gadawg73]

It truly amazes me how in America folks take their freedoms for granted and have not a damn clue where they come from.
Both the left wing kooks and right wing Jesus freaks have their own ideas of amending the Constitution.
One side wants to limit free speech and the other wants to ban gay marriage, both by Constitutional Amendment.
And dumb asses they all are.
The Constitution is a document founded on the principle of LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
And now we have morons that have no clue as to THE LAW wanting to use The Constitution, a document that has always limited the power of government ONLY, distort it and twist it and make a whore out of it and amend it to NOW, for the first time ever, take rights away from citizens by telling them what they can not do by the way of campaign contributions and gay marriage INSTEAD OF WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS DONE FOR 240 YEARS which is to tell GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
No wonder we are going to shit. Most citizens have no fucking clue what makes them free and what the Constitution stands for.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reverse Citizens United, because only people are people - Amend 2012

Yes, Communist Party USA homepage.

 

[g5000]

Amending the Constitution in this matter is idiotic – just as idiotic as a BBA.

If voters spent time researching the issues and candidates, and voted predicated on facts and knowledge, Citizens United would be rendered moot.

And such an amendment would clearly conflict with the First Amendment, as the issue is about protected speech, not campaign funding or ‘corporate personhood.’

Thank you.

It takes a real idiot to ask the government to be their nanny and protect them from their own laziness.

 

[g5000]

With all the parroting of bumper sticker illogic I have seen on this board, I am not surprised there are some people who are afraid of TV ads. It is as if they are instinctively aware, on some deep level, of their own shallowness and lack of critical thinking.

Such people calling for a free speech ban is like some kind of paradox!

"Please amend the Constitution and stop me from believing and repeating stuff I hear on TV!"

 

[Gadawg73]

Political support for candidates be it ham sandwiches at a Sunday social, bus and other transportation support or CASH is FREE SPEECH as it gets.
McCain Feingold was bad law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One amendment can change another, so that wouldn't be a problem.

Which would mean repealing the First Amendment, that’s a big problem.

You're depending on a pipe dream that isn't going to happen…

No, I’m simply explaining the correct remedy to the problem, I know very well it won’t come about.

when the real reason government isn't listening to the governed is all the money special interests use to buy our representitives' votes. IMO, public financing is the only solution.

What constitutes a ‘special interest’? What criteria will you use to determine who is worthy of government access and who is not? And who will decide whom gets what funding in a ‘public financing’ scheme? The government? It’s not the government’s role to determine what the voting public may or may not hear.

That citizens fail to exercise their right to vote responsibility doesn’t justify violating the First Amendment as some sort of a ‘solution’ to that failure.

 

[konradv]

The left celebrated when the Supreme Court found a "separation of church and state" that didn't exist in the Constitution and nobody on the left shed any tears when the Supreme Court found "a right to privacy" that didn't exist in the Constitution which opened the floodgates for the murder of the unborn. Now that the Supreme Court decided that money is speech the left wants to amend the Constitution. Live with it lefties.

Fine, as long as you can live with Obama only using half his billion to win re-election and leaves the rest to Hillary in '16!

 

[konradv]

With all the parroting of bumper sticker illogic I have seen on this board, I am not surprised there are some people who are afraid of TV ads. It is as if they are instinctively aware, on some deep level, of their own shallowness and lack of critical thinking.

Such people calling for a free speech ban is like some kind of paradox!

"Please amend the Constitution and stop me from believing and repeating stuff I hear on TV!"

It's not about what's being said, but how it's paid for. You can do all the research you want, but if there's a backroom deal tied to campaign contributions, the deck may already be stacked.

 

[konradv]

One amendment can change another, so that wouldn't be a problem.

Which would mean repealing the First Amendment, that’s a big problem.

You're depending on a pipe dream that isn't going to happen…

No, I’m simply explaining the correct remedy to the problem, I know very well it won’t come about.

when the real reason government isn't listening to the governed is all the money special interests use to buy our representitives' votes. IMO, public financing is the only solution.

What constitutes a ‘special interest’? What criteria will you use to determine who is worthy of government access and who is not? And who will decide whom gets what funding in a ‘public financing’ scheme? The government? It’s not the government’s role to determine what the voting public may or may not hear.

That citizens fail to exercise their right to vote responsibility doesn’t justify violating the First Amendment as some sort of a ‘solution’ to that failure.

It wouldn't be a repeal of the first amendment, but something limited covering campaigns. It's also not about "access", people would still be able to lobby, just not contribute to campaigns. As for who gets funds, I'd have regular debates at all levels, even during off years. When elections approach, have sub-primaries to determine who has significant support from the parties and any independents. From there money would be divided equally and the number of candidates cut down after the primaries. Not only would that keep people from selling their votes, they'd also have more time to do OUR business, instead of spending so much of it auctioning their vote to the highest bidder.

 

[konradv]

This is going to be an awesome campaign season with the SuperPac ads that Colbert is going to run to make people bitch about the unlimited untraceable money.

I mean come on, unlimited, untraceable money. How ridiculous is that?

Great!!! No way to know who's bribing who.

 

[dblack]

The only real cure is to make huge corporate funding the kiss of death for any candidate's chances. Every candidate from now on should have a published ratio of corporate/private donations. Maybe someone will make a website that does just that.

Exactly. It's time for voters to grow up, and stop sitting in front of their TVs waiting to be advertised to.

 

[konradv]

The only real cure is to make huge corporate funding the kiss of death for any candidate's chances. Every candidate from now on should have a published ratio of corporate/private donations. Maybe someone will make a website that does just that.

Exactly. It's time for voters to grow up, and stop sitting in front of their TVs waiting to be advertised to.

I think it's time to quit making it easy for special interests to buy our representitives' votes.

 

[dblack]

The decision lets this guy fund campaigns at will.

mid coast views: Who is Paul Singer and why is he trying to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

I wonder why he'd want a guy like Romney to be POTUS?

Romney is bought and paid for by wealthy, powerful interests. That OUGHT to be enough, right there, to completely sink Romney's campaign. And it could be - if Obama wasn't sitting in a huge glass house when it comes to that kind of funding.

 

[dblack]

The only real cure is to make huge corporate funding the kiss of death for any candidate's chances. Every candidate from now on should have a published ratio of corporate/private donations. Maybe someone will make a website that does just that.

Exactly. It's time for voters to grow up, and stop sitting in front of their TVs waiting to be advertised to.

I think it's time to quit making it easy for special interests to buy our representitives' votes.

Ok... so let's say we make it harder. Now only the people who really want to buy a candidate will be able to do it. Hmm.... how's that again?