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

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Elections shouldn’t be won on who can saturate the most markets with negative advertising.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You mean republicans take money from questionable sources?

 

[Leviticus]

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

Citizens United was designed specifically to allow Political donations to Be exempt from any requirements that they be disclosed.

For example if you have a politician taking multimillion dollar donations from a company which they In charge of overseeing On a congressional committee, It might The American people left likely to vote for that person If they knew that he was taking those donations. In many cases Large corporate donations are basically Legalized bribery. Citizens United allow those Donations to be Clip done in secret and shielded from public scrutiny.

I am all four companies and people being allowed to make political donations but all donations should be disclosed so that the American people know whose pocket their leaders are in.

That's the thing about free speech you're free to say whatever you want, And if you want to consider spending money for an issue to be speech that's fine. But if I see someone wearing a mask while they're talking I'm going to assume that they're trying to hide their identity to protect themselves from being scrutinized for what they're saying because they know it's wrong. In the lack of disclosure requirements under citizens United is exactly the same thing.

 

[White 6]

It shows clearly which side is not serious about changing it.

No. Neither side is serious about changing it, certainly not the Republicans and the democrats did not make a main push on this when Nancy had a majority and ran the show.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This amendment proposal is "just politics".

Uh huh.
What will be the politics of the Republicans?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No. Neither side is serious about changing it, certainly not the Republicans and the democrats did not make a main push on this when Nancy had a majority and ran the show.

Irrelevant.

 

[Rigby5]

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

What Citizens United did was allow employers to aggregate donations without having to track individual donors, and without any limits.
That was a huge loophole that allowed Chinese companies to launder money from the Chinese government, into our political campaigns.
It has nothing at all to do with freedom of political speech for US citizens.
They do not need a cover to launder for them.

 

[White 6]

Irrelevant.

Now you got it! Schiff's bill is irrelevant!

 

[toobfreak]

Well Mr. Peabody, if you want to pop me into your Wayback Machine and send me back, I'll take my personally built AR-15 with me and engage at 300 to 400 meters instead of their muskets range, not accurate much past 100 yards and that with a 30 inch drop at that outside distance for them. Since they lined up to fight and I don't, I figure I could probably handle most of the 700 or enough to get them heading back to their boats, possibly without having to wake up every village and town, and probably still have most of my ammo from around the house after it was over. Not nearly as heroic and romantic a picture as our militiamen, (more like slaughter) but more effective with less wear and tear on or troops.

 

[scruffy]

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

Boycott all you want! Just don't donate dark money.

We have to get a handle on political money. The equation with free speech is just an excuse. It's not speech, it's dark money.

 

[scruffy]

Of course monetary donations are free speech.

No they're not.

They're monetary donations.

 

[struth]

Boycott all you want! Just don't donate dark money.

We have to get a handle on political money. The equation with free speech is just an excuse. It's not speech, it's dark money.

you don’t donate dark money to a campaign. there are caps on what someone can donate a campaign.

dark money refers to money given to a PAC; like say the New Democract Coalation or and individual and what that PAC spends on their own to supper a cause or people runnings but not to the campaign.

 

[blackhawk]

Typical political grandstanding purpose something you know will go nowhere that you don't really want to so you can appear righteous.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Now you got it! Schiff's bill is irrelevant!

Ok?
Perhaps he already knows how it will go and is using the result for a later purpose?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Because the Democratic party doesn't get donations from corporations.

 

[struth]

What Citizens United did was allow employers to aggregate donations without having to track individual donors, and without any limits.
That was a huge loophole that allowed Chinese companies to launder money from the Chinese government, into our political campaigns.
It has nothing at all to do with freedom of political speech for US citizens.
They do not need a cover to launder for them.

all it did was find one part of a 6 year old law was illegal.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

all it did was find one part of a 6 year old law was illegal.

Um hmm.
Who is in a position to fix it?

 

[struth]

Um hmm.
Who is in a position to fix it?

huh? don’t understand your question.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

huh? don’t understand your question.

Go figure.

 

[struth]

Go figure.

yeah i guess, can you explain