Adam Schiff has just introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and stop unrestricted dark money in our elections

[basquebromance]

This would truly return power to the American people

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This would truly return power to the American people

He wants to limit free speech with a new amendment?
Why not just repeal the 1st Amendment?

 

[White 6]

This would truly return power to the American people

It might if it had been introduced last year. I doubt it goes far in the Republican controlled house, as they are really big on corporate donations.

 

[excalibur]

He wants to limit free speech with a new amendment?
Why not just repeal the 1st Amendment?

One step at a time. That is how the evil leftoids do it. Next up: "Hate speech" laws.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It might if it had been introduced last year. I doubt it goes far in the Republican controlled house, as they are really big on corporate donations.

Adam is angry that people are able to criticize Dem politicians.
Someone even had the nerve to make a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

 

[excalibur]

It might if it had been introduced last year. I doubt it goes far in the Republican controlled house, as they are really big on corporate donations.

You need 2/3 in each Hosue and then if that happened 3/4 of the states for ratification.

 

[pknopp]

Here again is another case where a politician refuses to do something when they held all three branches but decides to do it when they know it will go nowhere.

Political dead weight.

 

[JGalt]

This would truly return power to the American people

Why? Democrats get more "dark money" than any political party in the world. That's the only way they can steal elections.

 

[BULLDOG]

Even if it doesn't pass this time, the ball is rolling, it will eventually. Allowing gay marriage took a long time, but when it happened, it happened fairly quickly. I suspect this will be the same.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why? Democrats get more "dark money" than any political party in the world. That's the only way they can steal elections.

Thanks for your support of ending Citizens United.

 

[berg80]

It might if it had been introduced last year.

It was.

March 24, 2022

CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF INTRODUCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED​

Today, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and once again allow for reasonable restrictions on corporate campaign contributions and other spending.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations and special interest groups could spend nearly unlimited funds on election campaigns. In the decade since, outside groups spent more than $4.4 billion in federal elections – nearly $1 billion of which was untraceable “dark money” – with some of the biggest contributors coming from Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, and the NRA.

“Thanks to one disastrous ruling, wealthy megadonors, corporations, and special interest groups have been able to influence elections when that power should belong with the American people. This has eroded faith in the government’s ability to deliver for the people and their families,” said Schiff. “Dark money should have no place in our democracy. It is time to return power to the people, and overturn Citizens United once and for all.”

Congressman Schiff Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

The Official U.S. House website of Congressman Adam Schiff of California District 30

schiff.house.gov

 

[BlindBoo]

One thing the IRS pseudo scandal under obama uncovered was that the real problem is with the untraceable donations to those pac. Those organizations who accept anonymous donations can have zero political activity whatsoever, by law. However someone at the IRS made a rule that allows those public service organization to engage in political activity as long as it does not exceed 50% of the organization expenditures. Neither corrupt party wants to see that slush fund dry up or they would have addressed that problem instead of kicking the can down the road.

 

[berg80]

Why? Democrats get more "dark money" than any political party in the world.

Prove it. Why would Repubs block an end to dark money if Dems received the majority of it?

Republicans block bill requiring dark money groups to reveal donors

Senate Republicans voted Thursday to block the consideration of a bill to promptly require organizations that spend money on elections to promptly disclose the identities of donors who give $10,000…

thehill.com

 

[White 6]

It was.

March 24, 2022

CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF INTRODUCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED​

Today, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and once again allow for reasonable restrictions on corporate campaign contributions and other spending.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations and special interest groups could spend nearly unlimited funds on election campaigns. In the decade since, outside groups spent more than $4.4 billion in federal elections – nearly $1 billion of which was untraceable “dark money” – with some of the biggest contributors coming from Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, and the NRA.

“Thanks to one disastrous ruling, wealthy megadonors, corporations, and special interest groups have been able to influence elections when that power should belong with the American people. This has eroded faith in the government’s ability to deliver for the people and their families,” said Schiff. “Dark money should have no place in our democracy. It is time to return power to the people, and overturn Citizens United once and for all.”

Congressman Schiff Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

The Official U.S. House website of Congressman Adam Schiff of California District 30

schiff.house.gov

Then it definitely won't get anywhere, now.
Republican and Democrat politicians alike benefit from Citizens United.
We have the best representation in the two houses of Congress, money can buy.

 

[struth]

This would truly return power to the American people

it’s going nowhere. Unlike Shifty the american people don’t want their free speech limited

 

[BULLDOG]

Not sure how it might work, but it seems congress could make a law that restricts some aspect of Citizen's United enough to render it useless. Perhaps limiting the huge donations to reporting requirements that normal people have to adhere to.

 

[pknopp]

Thanks for your support of ending Citizens United.

One doesn't need an Amendment to change how we fund campaigns. Again, he knows an amendment will never pass.

 

[berg80]

it’s going nowhere. Unlike Shifty the american people don’t want their free speech limited

Money isn't free speech.

Go back almost a century, to the time when the modern corporation was created, and you’ll find laws that prohibit or limit the use of corporate money in elections. And yet this week, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the limits that Congress passed in 2002 in this tradition in the case Citizens United v. FEC.

The majority’s ruling unleashes a new wave of campaign cash and adds to the already considerable power of corporations. The court’s main rationale is that limits on using corporate treasuries for campaigns are a “classic example of censorship,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. To get there, Kennedy depends on two legal theories that blossomed as constitutional principles in the mid-1970s: money is speech and corporations are people. Both theories are strange, if not simply wrongheaded—why, according to the Constitution or common sense, would money be speech or corporations be people? The court has also employed theories not uniformly but, rather, as constitutional cover for dominance of the electoral system by corporations and by the wealthy.

The misguided theories behind Citizens United v. FEC.

Go back almost a century, to the time when the modern corporation was created, and you'll find laws that prohibit or limit the use of corporate money...

slate.com

 

[berg80]

One doesn't need an Amendment to change how we fund campaigns. Again, he knows an amendment will never pass.

Neither will campaign finance reform as long as Repubs have the power to block it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One doesn't need an Amendment to change how we fund campaigns. Again, he knows an amendment will never pass.

He's always been a drama queen.

Did he ever reveal his proof that Russian collusion was real?