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

[dblack]

Not if there's a new amendment dealing with campaign finance. I've got nothing against the "opinion makers", though their bosses would have to make sure there's "equal time" for all the candidates to get their views out. It's the money, not the speech, that's tilting the system.

And how would you ensure that without violating the first amendment? And when you say all the candidates, uh... really? ALL of them?

If you go back and look I lay out my plan in an earlier post. Initially, there would be debates and a sub-primary, so NOT all candidates, just those that reach some pre-set level of support.

And would media be allowed to support those that didn't reach the pre-set level of support?

 

[konradv]

Yes it would.

Where does the First Amendment make an exception for political campaigns? In fact, if there is one thing the founders would have mentioned explicitly, it's political campaigns.

The decision has nothing to do with contributions to political campaigns. It refers to independent expenditures. Everyone opposed to the decision always talks about campaign donations. They have nothing to do with it.

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

Hmm yeah public financing of elections... Nikita Khrushchev would be so proud.
When you have government controlling campaign spending, those in power control who gets financing.
Government has a vested interest in protecting it's power. Private contributors have an interest in voicing their concerns.

Don't people in power control things now? I'm talking about rules, not someone doling out bucks to their favorite candidate. That's the system we have now and it ain't working. It isn't about the speech, but the backroom deals involving campaign cash for votes. If the financing were public, everyone would know what everyone got and who gave it to them, US!!!

 

[konradv]

And how would you ensure that without violating the first amendment? And when you say all the candidates, uh... really? ALL of them?

If you go back and look I lay out my plan in an earlier post. Initially, there would be debates and a sub-primary, so NOT all candidates, just those that reach some pre-set level of support.

And would media be allowed to support those that didn't reach the pre-set level of support?

What would media be doing supporting candidates? Sounds like a business that wants to get cut out of the loop. Talking heads on regular programs, fine. Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine, unless it was paid for with their own allotment of funds.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Don't people in power control things now? I'm talking about rules, not someone doling out bucks to their favorite candidate.

Yes, because the government holds itself accountable to the rules so often.

We have rules already. They do not honor them amongst themselves, nor hold others that finance their campaigns/other accountable. Make all the rules you want. All you're doing is given them a reason to conduct themselves with more discretion instead of in the public eye. Nothing won for us, nothing lost for them.

 

[dblack]

If you go back and look I lay out my plan in an earlier post. Initially, there would be debates and a sub-primary, so NOT all candidates, just those that reach some pre-set level of support.

And would media be allowed to support those that didn't reach the pre-set level of support?

What would media be doing supporting candidates?

Well, if the owners of said media wanted a certain candidate elected ...

Sounds like a business that wants to get cut out of the loop. Talking heads on regular programs, fine. Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine, unless it was paid for with their own allotment of funds.

What do you mean 'cut out of the loop'? And, are you saying there would be laws banning the 'fluff pieces'? How would that not be a violation of the first amendment?

 

[Poli_Sigh]

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

Gingrich whined that he was poor with only a measly $2 or $3 million. This he said to an audience in a country with double digit unemployment. Mitt Romney doesn't like poor folks, probably because he's never been one. He's barely getting by on $200 million - most of which was no doubt earned by his father, George Romney. McCain couldn't remember or didn't know how many homes he owned.

Take money out of politics! Fat chance of that in a country that some years ago chose Capitalism over Democracy. America's deities are reflected as pictures of dead presidents.

Besides, it would take a Revolution not an amendment to the Constitution to change the way in which Washington and politics in general do business. We should all know by now, that no matter how much politicians talk about campaign reform, it's never going to happen.

An amendment doesn't have to come from Congress. It could come from the states.

It could just as long as those sitting in the State Legislatures aren't aspiring to move up the ranks. Of course, we know they are.

What must be done is to remove the word career from politician.

I'm with Warren Buffett on this splendid suggestion for fixing Congress' inertia problems:

In a recent interview with CNBC, he offered one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

I could end the deficit in 5 minutes, he told CNBC. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

Hmm yeah public financing of elections... Nikita Khrushchev would be so proud.
When you have government controlling campaign spending, those in power control who gets financing.
Government has a vested interest in protecting it's power. Private contributors have an interest in voicing their concerns.

Don't people in power control things now? I'm talking about rules, not someone doling out bucks to their favorite candidate. That's the system we have now and it ain't working. It isn't about the speech, but the backroom deals involving campaign cash for votes. If the financing were public, everyone would know what everyone got and who gave it to them, US!!!

And you want to give government more power and sanction back room deals? I'd much prefer private back room deals to deals conducted by the party in power.

 

[konradv]

Hmm yeah public financing of elections... Nikita Khrushchev would be so proud.
When you have government controlling campaign spending, those in power control who gets financing.
Government has a vested interest in protecting it's power. Private contributors have an interest in voicing their concerns.

Don't people in power control things now? I'm talking about rules, not someone doling out bucks to their favorite candidate. That's the system we have now and it ain't working. It isn't about the speech, but the backroom deals involving campaign cash for votes. If the financing were public, everyone would know what everyone got and who gave it to them, US!!!

And you want to give government more power and sanction back room deals? I'd much prefer private back room deals to deals conducted by the party in power.

You prefer backroom what? If you have an election commission and oversight by the courts and if everyone knows what everyone's supposed to get, where are the backroom deals in my proposal?

 

[konradv]

And would media be allowed to support those that didn't reach the pre-set level of support?

What would media be doing supporting candidates?

Well, if the owners of said media wanted a certain candidate elected ...

Sounds like a business that wants to get cut out of the loop. Talking heads on regular programs, fine. Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine, unless it was paid for with their own allotment of funds.

What do you mean 'cut out of the loop'? And, are you saying there would be laws banning the 'fluff pieces'? How would that not be a violation of the first amendment?

Huh? Haven't you been following the thread? It's been all about a NEW AMENDMENT confined to campaign finance and the attending free speech aspects.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

So when Barack Obama was pulling down all those millions from corporate donors...should THAT have been the "kiss of death" for him? You guys are just upset that that money is going elsewhere this time around...which is rather amusing to watch.

 

[dblack]

What would media be doing supporting candidates?

Well, if the owners of said media wanted a certain candidate elected ...

Sounds like a business that wants to get cut out of the loop. Talking heads on regular programs, fine. Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine, unless it was paid for with their own allotment of funds.

What do you mean 'cut out of the loop'? And, are you saying there would be laws banning the 'fluff pieces'? How would that not be a violation of the first amendment?

Huh? Haven't you been following the thread? It's been all about a NEW AMENDMENT confined to campaign finance and the attending free speech aspects.

Ok, but what you're suggesting it limiting a media pundit's freedom of speech. Unless I'm misreading you. What do you mean by "Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine ..."? Does "not fine" mean it should be legally prohibited?

 

[konradv]

Well, if the owners of said media wanted a certain candidate elected ...



What do you mean 'cut out of the loop'? And, are you saying there would be laws banning the 'fluff pieces'? How would that not be a violation of the first amendment?

Huh? Haven't you been following the thread? It's been all about a NEW AMENDMENT confined to campaign finance and the attending free speech aspects.

Ok, but what you're suggesting it limiting a media pundit's freedom of speech. Unless I'm misreading you. What do you mean by "Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine ..."? Does "not fine" mean it should be legally prohibited?

I can see your confusion. I must have had a "brain fart" on that one. I meant to say that any sort of campaign style program about a candidate would have to be paid for by the candidate out of their allotted funds.

 

[dblack]

Huh? Haven't you been following the thread? It's been all about a NEW AMENDMENT confined to campaign finance and the attending free speech aspects.

Ok, but what you're suggesting it limiting a media pundit's freedom of speech. Unless I'm misreading you. What do you mean by "Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine ..."? Does "not fine" mean it should be legally prohibited?

I can see your confusion. I must have had a "brain fart" on that one. I meant to say that any sort of campaign style program about a candidate would have to be paid for by the candidate out of their allotted funds.

Right, but you see the 'work around', right? If rich and powerful people are prevented from giving money directly to candidates, or from giving to a PAC that supports their candidate, or from buying them advertising time themselves - they'll just buy up media outlets and have their say that way. I don't see how we can stop it without, ultimately, limiting their freedom of speech.

 

[bripat9643]

Huh? Haven't you been following the thread? It's been all about a NEW AMENDMENT confined to campaign finance and the attending free speech aspects.

Ok, but what you're suggesting it limiting a media pundit's freedom of speech. Unless I'm misreading you. What do you mean by "Throwing together a fluff piece about a candidate, not fine ..."? Does "not fine" mean it should be legally prohibited?

I can see your confusion. I must have had a "brain fart" on that one. I meant to say that any sort of campaign style program about a candidate would have to be paid for by the candidate out of their allotted funds.

Simply interviewing a candidate or covering one of his campaign stops is immensely valuable advertising. Do you propose to outlaw that?