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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Money isn't free speech.

You can't stop free speech, even if it makes Hillary Clinton look bad.

 

[struth]

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

how you spend it certainly is speech and says something.

if i buy a Lakers poster, shirt, tickets etc i am saying i i like the Lakers

If i spend money on a buttons and posters for Corey Booker i am saying i like Booker. You shouldn’t be able to limit that speech of mine.

 

[scruffy]

how you spend it certainly is speech and says something.

if i buy a Lakers poster, shirt, tickets etc i am saying i i like the Lakers

If i spend money on a buttons and posters for Corey Booker i am saying i like Booker. You shouldn’t be able to limit that speech of mine.

BULLSHIT.

Speech is the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

Money is the stuff in your wallet.

Even a blindfolded ten year old can tell the difference.

Money is COMMERCE, it's a business transaction. You're not speaking, you're buying someone else's speech

 

[Rust_Cohle]

This would truly return power to the American people

Schiff is still a faggot but money shouldn't buy a candidate we should elect those with the best ideas on a even playing field

 

[struth]

BULLSHIT.

Speech is the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

Money is the stuff in your wallet.

Even a blindfolded ten year old can tell the difference.

Money is COMMERCE, it's a business transaction. You're not speaking, you're buying someone else's speech

a sign or a poster or a shirt can’t be speech? a flag? of course it is.

 

[MarcATL]

I thought Republicans were pretending not to like Citizen's United since Trump.

Wha happened?

 

[whitehall]

A bill that might become law is one thing but beware of (mostly) democrat politicians who seek to amend the Constitution.

 

[pknopp]

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

It was never introduced when they had less power. To note......Obama once pretended to not go with corporate financing. When it came down to it, he wouldn't do it.

 

[eagle7-31]

This would truly return power to the American people

Or keep it with Soros and the silicon valley tech SOB's.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I have to say, I kinda agree with this. The amount of money being spent on elections is ridiculous. Campaigns are now going into the billions of dollars.

I think they should make a law that says that all campaigns donations must come from ordinary citizens, we don't need big corporations financing billion dollar campaigns. Furthermore, I think there should be caps on what you can spend.

 

[scruffy]

a sign or a poster or a shirt can’t be speech? a flag? of course it is.

If you buy it, it's commerce.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Which is the whole point you ass--- ---- Schiff isn't about to do anything for "the people,"--- this is about limiting GOP donations while freeing up the DNC to get even MORE money from their sources because they DON'T rely on corporate donations! Why should they when democrats are anti-corporate! That is unless it benefits THEM by pushing leftwing causes THROUGH the corporation! When Adam opens a bill limiting BOTH parties cutting deeply into DNC coffers too, LET ME KNOW.

Until then, WTFU.

 

[pknopp]

I have to say, I kinda agree with this. The amount of money being spent on elections is ridiculous. Campaigns are now going into the billions of dollars.

I think they should make a law that says that all campaigns donations must come from ordinary citizens, we don't need big corporations financing billion dollar campaigns. Furthermore, I think there should be caps on what you can spend.

The Citizen United lawsuit wasn't even about campaigns. The Supreme Court turned it into that which is odd since that is something they rarely do.

An individual made a movie about Hillary. Hillary wanted to stop the release. The law argued to do that McCain/Feingold (to make it easy) didn't even address campaign finances. It addressed restricting people outside of the two party and media from having a say in elections.

Politicians wanted to be able to place 10,000 billboards but they wanted to restrict outside groups from placing even one.

There is a reason those who signed off on the lawsuit was as diverse as the ACLU and the NRA. They weren't trying to protect huge corporate donations to politicians. They were trying to protect the speech of the people.

 

[struth]

If you buy it, it's commerce.

ok…something can be commerce and speech. what i decide to buy amd don’t buy says something…makes statements…boycotts for example, make statements

 

[White 6]

Which is the whole point you ass--- ---- Schiff isn't about to do anything for "the people,"--- this is about limiting GOP donations while freeing up the DNC to get even MORE money from their sources because they DON'T rely on corporate donations! Why should they when democrats are anti-corporate! That is unless it benefits THEM by pushing leftwing causes THROUGH the corporation! When Adam opens a bill limiting BOTH parties cutting deeply into DNC coffers too, LET ME KNOW.

Until then, WTFU.

So? It is just politics and doesn't even involve rousing the rabble. Maybe you could do your own little pointless issue doomed to fail from the start.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

It wouldn't go anywhere in a Democrat controlled House. This is just for show. The Democrats don't want to stop the money flow anymore than Republicans do.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Thanks for your support of ending Citizens United.

Do you even know what Citizens United did?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

Of course monetary donations are free speech.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

You think the Democrats are going to say no to all that union money? Hell no they aren't...lol

 

[22lcidw]

You think the Democrats are going to say no to all that union money? Hell no they aren't...lol

You see that in second and third world nations. Puerto Rico is as corrupted as they come. However, the funnel from the United States keeps the Island relevant.