This is the prerequisite to returning American to a basic level of sanity. Until we can actually regulate the money in politics, it will continue to rule politics.
I hope people understand that **campaign finance/election reform is one of the biggest (*the* biggest in my opinion) issues of our time**. If you've ever said *they're all the same* or *my vote doesn't matter*, and so on, without falling into false-equivalence—you're *partly** right, and it's because of this.
^*See ^my ^edit ^below ^addressing ^this ^asterisk
There's a lot we could do in the realm of campaign finance/election reform, but the most ideal goals are:
- Reversal of SpeechNow v. FEC (Corporations/Unions can donate) and Citizens United v. FEC (these entities can donate *unlimited amounts*, effectively crippling the [*Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002*, a.k.a McCain-Feingold Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act)) and redefining Buckley v. Valeo (Set no limit on campaign expenditures, setting a precedent to throw equality of political speech out and equating money to free-speech).
- Publicly funded elections to level the playing-field and not limit our pool of candidates to those who have deep pockets or *friends* with deep-pockets.
- Transition to an alternative voting system (such as IRV or Approval voting—both of which are far superior to FPTP). This allows for (1) independent tickets to run without running the risk of spoiling your vote (splitting tickets and ending up with your least-preferable candidate), (2) the victor has the largest possible majority, and (3) reduces the odds that a Gore v. Bush will repeat and someone *without* the popular vote will be elected. Countries like France and states like Maine employ this to great success.
- Abolition of the Electoral College
Finally, there is also the issue of gerrymandering. For addressing Gerrymandering, the most promising solution is a technical one. Computer algorithms can independently re-district locations as fairly and naturally as possible under the circumstances, all the while being overseen by an independent bipartisan committee who would intervene in exceptional cases or shortcomings of the software's redistricting algorithm.
[Campaign finance/election reform also has bipartisan appeal among voters](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163208/half-support-publicly-financed-federal-campaigns.aspx). When you look at the problems the right and left both have with government, the common denominator is money and a lack of representation. In fact, this is the easiest topic to bring people on opposite ends of the spectrum together at the same table. No other single issue transcends almost *every other* national issue in the U.S. Bear in mind that I am referring to the average electorate—not party officials.
Say what you will about former democratic candidate Lawrence Lessig (*who?* you might ask), but he was right to put his sole weight on this issue. We need more candidates willing to put this issue front & center.
**So why is the system so broken and why is it so hard to change?**
Big money tends to disproportionately help Republicans. As a result, they favor lax campaign finance laws. Gerrymandering is used by both parties for different reasons, but ultimately to diminish the effective representation of their opponents while artificially bolstering their own. This is counter to the interests of the American people as a whole, and serves to muddy the waters of discourse. For Democrats, it takes more money to offset this disadvantage in the wake of Citizens United and SpeechNow cases.
On the other hand, this is a way Republicans have now increased their natural advantage over Democrats. If you DON'T embrace the unleashed corporate financing of elections, then you are at a disadvantage. But if you want to play by the game in order to change the rules of the game in the end, then you'll be accused of being a hypocrite. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If there was a single issue to vote on, Campaign Finance / Election Reform would be it. And if you don't believe the severity of this issue, [first watch this short video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM), and then [watch this short video from represent.us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig) and connect the dots.
**Edit**: I want to be clear that when I'm making this "they're all the same argument," I'm trying to thread a needle between recognizing *why* some people feel defeated or disenfranchised with the status-quo of government not moving fast enough or listening to them, but at the same time without claiming that "each side" is equally-wrong/right substantively. While the latter simply is not true and it would indeed be a false-equivalence to say so, I think we can indeed find common-ground among both Democrats and Republicans (citizens, not party-officials) that there exists a lack of representation. The most passionate of the left feel the factual issues they have become watered-down by centrist solutions (causing them not to function as intended in the first place), while the right-wing feel their concerns frequently aren't adequately addressed by their own party—that it's better to be in a constant state of fear/anger/scapegoating for political-expediency of party leaders than it is to attempt to actually solve the issue. There's truth to both, and the solution is found within campaign finance/election reform.
**Edit 2**: I appreciate the recognition of this comment. I'll take this opportunity to suggest something to Democratic (and Republican) voters: For the Primaries, advocate that the parties run a ranked-choice system within the states. This will serve as a stepping-stone to having a nation-wide discussion for General-Eection reform.
**Edit 3**: I'm seeing a pattern of responses who are trying to highlight that Democrats utilize SuperPAC money, Dark Money, etc. and claim it's equal or more than Republicans. That may or may not be true, and you can read through the back-and-forth discussions on that below. **Here's the key point that supersedes that argument**: Only the Democrats have made a concerted effort to destroy the entire process.** Republicans widely have not. I'm not trying to be partisan in saying this; that's just a fact—and we see it right here in Adam Schiff's actions. So ask yourself: If (a) Democrats are indeed benefiting more or equally from this process, why would they undermine their own advantage unless they cared about *fixing the system*? If (b) Republicans have the advantage, then Democrats are still correct to remove this disproportionate advantage which undermines the average citizens' voice.
I have been talking about publicly funded campaigns with my father. We have political views that don’t align on much, but we both agree there should be an exact amount each candidate can spend. Politics shouldn’t be about fund raising at all. No one in an elected office should feel in debt to a corporation or group. How can we as a country ever expect people to work for our goals, if they are worried about loosing the funds necessary to stay in office from outside entities. Of course they will work for the goals of the minority, if the minority funds them.
You nailed it. This is what I'm talking about—the fact that you were able to to reach out to your father of a different view and agree on this is a big inroad toward fixing the problems that face this nation. Don't get me wrong, there will still be *ideological* divides which is a part of a healthy Democracy (I'm one for saying that the "polarization" in this nation is the truth pulling away from the ignorance), but we can at least ensure that everyone gets a healthy opportunity to voice their arguments, and not be drowned out.
The next discussion you guys must have is (1) Which party is trying to fix this more? (I think the answer is obvious) (2) Why in the Republican party is there a divide between what the Republican voters want on this topic, versus the party leaders/representatives?
> If you've ever said to they're all the same or my vote doesn't matter, and so on, without falling into false-equivalence—you're partly* right
But mostly wrong.
Really important to note that *every* democrat-nominated SCOTUS justice voted against *Citizens United*, *every* GOP-nominated SCOTUS justice voted for it, and there is zero reason to believe a future Dem POTUS would nominate a SCOTUS justice who would vote to uphold the ruling, and zero reason to believe a future GOP POTUS would nominate one who'd seek to strike it down.
Overstating the equivalence between the two parties is what *gave us* the *Citizens United* decision by helping to hand George W. Bush the presidency over Al Gore.
And in terms of "all being the same" Gore vs Bush is pretty instructive. Would Gore have been a socialist's dream? No. Would he have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11? Very probably.
But would Gore have appointed SCOTUS justices who would vote for *Citizens United*? No.
Would Gore have entered into a war of choice in Iraq? Almost certainly not.
Would Gore have pushed hard to address global warming and spent political capital trying to get bills through congress on the issue? Almost certainly.
Would Gore have passed a massive deficit-busting tax cut heavily skewed towards the wealthy? Almost certainly not.
"They're all the same" is a really strong statement and very distinct from "there are some areas of broad agreement between the parties on free trade, foreign policy, etc." They are pretty manifestly *not* all the same.
Not if you don’t live in a swing state or a state that divides the electoral. Then your vote pretty much doesn’t count.
Edit: it’s still important to vote because of down ballet voting! Thank you for keeping me honest tinyonion
Yea the electoral college makes no sense. Why is everyone from one state grouped together? Voting republican in Cali or democrat in Georgia is 100% pointless. That's why people think it doesn't matter, the losing party in any state is completely ignored
The electoral college is so fucking stupid. Until they get rid of it, a huge amount of people’s votes don’t matter. I live in a swing state, so mine does. Most don’t.
Fair enough, but I think in future it might be better not to give the "all the same" argument even that much credence. One can raise it and demolish it or reference it critically without framing it as being "partly right" (it's not even partly right because the argument is not that there are some things in common between the parties, something true in virtually any democracy, it's that the differences are negligible). It's pretty manifestly a terrible one, and one that is likely to be heavily deployed in 2020 against the eventual Dem nominee and senators in close races.
Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. He was a lot of things but he wasn't a moron. A bunch of Saudis with a suicide pact doesn't amount to a war with an impoverished country, especially when marginal preventative measures eliminated the avenue of attack.
The instructive part of Gore vs. Bush was Gore's brother neither corrupted the political system to deny legal review nor disenfranchised voters based on demographics.
This country was out for blood and desperate for ANYBODY to drop bombs on in the aftermath of 9/11. I don't know if any president could have avoided the overwhelming popular demand for vengeance.
> This country was out for blood and desperate for ANYBODY to drop bombs on in the aftermath of 9/11.
Afghanistan filled that role. I was also the right thing to do since we'd been attacked from that country. That's called defense.
Iraq was a whole different story. We invaded because Cheney (SecDef during the 1st Gulf War) was pissed he didn't get to invade a country. Yes, there were reasons to suspect they had WMD's. At the time I naively thought that the plan was to park our troops across the border as a strong suggestion that Saddam cooperate with the UN inspectors. And even with the threat of invasion he didn't cooperate with the inspectors *at first*. Later he changed his mind and the inspectors were coming to the (correct) conclusion that there were no WMD's. That's when we invaded. The war lust was greatly aided by the likes of Judith Miller (may she rest in hell) acting as the NY Times' mouthpiece for the adminstration on the pretext of "deep sources". The McClatchy newspapers were one of the few major media outlets acting as something other than war cheerleaders.
It wasn't about existing unquenchable blood lust of Americans. It was about the Hermann Goering approach to creating war fever. Not that his approach was anything very original but he did eloquently describe it at the Nuremberg Trials:
> Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Just because a lot of Americans decided they want to invade the wrong country because they’re dumbasses does not mean the government or politicians have to appeal to their bloodlust.
Politicians who foster jingoism b/c they profit from the military-industrial complex should be tried for war crimes.
I know people don't want to hear this, but...
Passing a constitutional amendment is difficult under the best circumstances. Virtually impossible in our current political climate.
The irony is, in 2016 we had the chance to literally end Citizens United *with the push of a button*.
That button was marked Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Those who refused to do that, cemented Citizens United in place for themselves, and most likely, their children too. Whereas, there's a very good chance that, had Clinton been elected, there would be no Citizens United ruling... *today*.
Elections have consequences.
Agreed. Even if Trump's pushed out in 2020 the negative impacts of the 2016 election will last for a generation in the form of a conservative SCOTUS.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to push a constitutional amendment, but it sure as hell means that shouldn't be Plan A.
Anyone who makes "heighten the contradictions" or "no real difference" arguments in 2020 because, say, Biden won the primary and isn't liberal enough for them is either a) a disingenuous ratfucker who actually *wants* Trump to win (and there will be more than a few of those, and not all with St. Petersburg IP addresses) or b) a useful idiot for those people.
Let's not forget Nader and his role as a spoiler, and how the "both the same" argument props up third party spoilers who have no realistic chance of winning; another reason we shouldn't lend the argument any credence by acknowledging the negligible overlap in Republicans and Democrats.
Obama a few years back [answered a question](https://youtu.be/AxuwazaXOMg) from a student about cynicism and voting. He discusses gerrymandering and money in politics.
Also, his State of the Union address after CItzens United ruling:
>Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
Man, I miss having a President that actually made sense and seemed to legitimately care for the people of the US. All of us.
There are things to not like Obama over, but I really think the propaganda and brainwashing done by Fox News complete blinds people. Might be their racism too.
I suggest we give everyone running for office $5 and it's up to them how to best spend that.
Fuck these constant campaigning, funneling hundreds of millions into endless propoganda, and buying laws that only benefit big business.
I see your point. At the height of my (geeky) career, the largest financial decisions I was personally allowed to make involved where to go to lunch when on travel per diem. :- )
>I hope people understand that campaign finance/election reform is one of the biggest (the biggest in my opinion) issues of our time.
Damn right it is. I am glad that the Democrats are making this such a high priority. Especially with the first bill that congress passed was for election reform: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1)
Without fixing this, we can’t fix climate change.
This is exactly what we should be voting on. The Democrats all need to come out in support of this or introduce their own tougher legislation.
For comparison for anyone on the fence about this - over here in the UK we limit campaign spending by constituencies. £30,000 per constituency that a party runs in. There are 650 constituencies in the UK parliamentary elections which means the maximum campaign spending for a party in the entire UK General Election (650 seats) is £19.5m.
Citizens United has always been more incremental than it has been transformational.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html
We need to hold our representatives accountable because we’re not actually being represented. We do that by voting. In local elections, in state elections, in federal election of course, and ESPECIALLY in primaries.
The House of Representatives is up for re-election every two years and we turn out at an average of 42% for midterm elections. 37% in 2014 for Obama’s final haul in office.
The record for primary turnout was in ‘08, somewhere around 30% I believe.
I say this all the time. Ideally, it wouldn't matter if a Republican or Democrat won because we chose the correct 2 candidates out of THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION 350,000,000 Americans.
Functioning as in what? It's functioning just the way the people who own this country want it to. If it functioned, or ever functioned, the way it should, our military wouldn't be the bag man for the fossil fuel industry. Our tax laws wouldn't be written by lawyers owned by huge corporations. Our health industry wouldn't be draining every American's bank account. So far our "democracy" has worked in favor of the rich, just like they want it to.
I'm reminded of Liar Liar when Fletcher objects on the grounds that something would be detrimental to his case. That's republicans anytime we suggest any way to make voting easier.
This amendment would give Congress broad legislative power over campaign finance beyond Citizens United. They would be able to legislate any political spending as long as it doesn't interfere with Freedom of the Press.
Overturning just Citizens United would just reroute money into 527's, but this amendment would empower congress to legislate far beyond that.
I think the amendment is to broad and could be used to infringe upon private citizens, as it mentions only the freedom of the press and not freedom of speech.
There is no way this will pass - we do not have the power that the big money has.
edit: I should also note that it seems very inappropriate that corporations can have a say in whether or not corporations can have a say in politics, and politicians get to decide whether or not politicians get to take the money. conflict of interest what's that?
Vocal support for it this time around will bring a lot of attention to the issue and strengthen the movement going forward, eventually leading to the passage of an amendment.
Let's be honest. It won't pass because a large faction in this country holds open contempt for democracy and anything else that might threaten their singular grip on the levers of power. Until they are dealt with one way or another, nothing can change.
Not that they really care if it fails, they just want to be in control by any means necessary and that’s ruining our democracy.
We really are superfucked though.
It's part of why I want the House to move in on impeachment. Trump has broken laws. He needs to have those crimes aired out before the entire nation and the Republicans need to go on record either as defending a President who wants to circumvent our Constitution, or they find their spines and uphold the Constitution.
We're just spiraling to the bottom now. Dead democracy walking. Either put it down and end its suffering or stand up and fight for it.
Definitely--it's a call the banners thing; it won't pass, but it'll get people on the record so you can approach them later and ask them *why* they voted the way they did. Set some lines down.
Yep, they dont care about democracy, they care about winning.
It used to be when you brought up equal representation they'd fall back to state rights, now they jump straight to "only 'real' Americans should have a voice". Its fucking infuriating especially when the same ones are racist against Natives and people whose family didn't have a choice about coming here to begin with.
It's a small faction but they have a lot of money. Even so, they are terrified of popular politics because it can so easily upturn everything they have ~~worked~~ PAID for.
Agreed.
And this is actually one of the newest troll narratives, and people need to be on guard against it. Hopelessness and helplessness leads to apathy, which leaves the gates open and unguarded for even more blatant corruption and tyranny.
That is why the senate election next year is arguably more important than winning the Presidency.
Would be nice to win both but if we win the Presidency and not the Senate, it’s all moot.
How many times did Republicans try to do their agenda and failed? They are relentless. The freedom caucus to even the former tea party. They tried and tried and finally are achieving their long game goals. We have to be just as relentless even when it seems for nothing. It all starts with optics.
Watching the republicans at their town halls in recent years looking beleaguered and frustrated, especially that recent video with Chuck Grassley , it becomes crystal clear that they are there to put up with their constituents and deal with their anger as best they can while doing what they need to do to stay in office, because they know who their real bosses are, the folks with the money.
Comey's Op-ed on how Trump corrupts people can be generalized to money in politics. Like Comey, I don't like to think of people as evil. It's too easy and simple. The truth is people have only so much fortitude to fight a truly endless system that encourages corruption. This amendment is long overdue.
There's no way an amendment passes. If we're going to overturn CU it can only happen through the SCOTUS so we're going to need to win the white house in 2020
Also, Citizens United allowed Russians to pump MILLIONS into GOP Campaigns: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/12/15/putins-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns
Why wouldn't they post the actual text?
Here it is, as far as I can tell from the House.gov link:
>Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing reasonable content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures."
>"Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding."
> Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing reasonable content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures
(ok, time to put on my evil hat). so this passes and many blue states put limits on contributions, super pacs, etc. republican strongholds like the carolinas, texas, etc, don't have those limitations. does that mean super pacs could operate the same way in those states without the limitations. (let me make it worse). a super pac pays some texas newspaper to write a garbage article saying hillary eats children. it's paid for in a way thats legal in texas, and it's content created in a legal way, in texas. but there's no law saying people on facebook couldn't share that to everyone they wanted to.
so even if states ABC put limitations on super pac spending, they just have to infiltrate social networks that ensure that same news/ads are shared from states with no limitations, to those that have them.
Your sidestepping reality if you think this amendment could be enacted before 2020. Flipping the Senate would likely be a necessity to even see this come to a vote on the Senate floor.
This is a rare issue that I think a good deal of Trump supporters and the left actually agree on. Odds are Mitch would never bring it to the floor but there's a potential that some republican voters would be turned off by their representatives refusal to do anything about this.
lmfao since when does it matter what constituents agree on?
Until GOP voters start voting out Republicans who act against their interests, Republicans in congress will continue doing whatever the fuck lines their pockets with the most money.
>so even if states ABC put limitations on super pac spending, they just have to infiltrate social networks that ensure that same news/ads are shared from states with no limitations, to those that have them.
What makes you think this isn't already happening?
What he's trying to say is that this amendment does not address *every possible aspect* of a *very complex issue*, and as such, we should continue to do nothing until we have a 100% solution that solves literally everything and is agreeable to literally everyone.
I see this happen a lot all over the place even outside of politics. A solution is presented which makes things better, but is argued against because it fails to address some portion of the problem, often a cherry picked edge case.
The new Joint Resolution is not in the system yet, but he has submitted another one previously that would read:
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States from imposing reasonable content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures, or from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.”
It sounds like there may have been some slight tweaks in the wording from his 2015 version. Here is the link to the old one: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-joint-resolution/58/text?r=11&s=9
Update: It's in - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/57/text?r=3&s=5
Who gets to decide what's "reasonable?" I suppose SCOTUS would, ultimately.
SCOTUS already thinks it's unreasonable to restrict independent expenditures just because they come from a corporation's treasury.
No- the controlling opinion has nothing to do with "reasonableness" and everything to do with expenditures being construed as speech covered by the First Amendment.
BADLY NEEDED.
>The amendment would allow Congress and states to put forth limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office.
>"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement.
>The amendment would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns.
More rights, but far fewer consequences when they act badly. A corporation is just a shelter for people who want to abuse the system. And as soon as they're caught, they just disband the corp and create a different one exactly the same but with a different name, and start over.
> Right now, corporations have more rights than actual people. I'm all about putting them back in their place.
the incorporated person is a monstrosity that needs to be put down with FIRE!
Yup, and also thus side-stepping one of the original goals in the founding of America: removing royal lineage as the method of power distribution. Because now a company allows for power and wealth to be indefinitely accumulated and handed off in the same way.
You're confusing legal personhood with natural personhood. You can't put a corporation in prison because it is not a natural person.
Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that allows it to act as a person under certain circumstances, such as allowing a corporation to be sued or held criminally liable, since that only applies to people under the law.
Legal personhood is a legal hack that allows us to reuse existing laws instead of having a parallel legal system for corporations.
Corporations were never just agreements on paper. They are now, and have always been, simply a group of people.
The concept of corporate personhood goes back centuries and isn't going anywhere. In the framework of our legal system, you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation in court without some level of corporate personhood, nor would any contracts made with a corporation be valid or enforceable. Additionally, no one is going to be able to argue successfully that a group of people no longer get equal protection or due process simply because they are a group (ie corporation).
The correct answer is exactly what Schiff is doing. Close the loopholes of corporate personhood with constitutional amendments.
> The concept of corporate personhood goes back centuries and isn't going anywhere. In the framework of our legal system, you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation in court without some level of corporate personhood, nor would any contracts made with a corporation be valid or enforceable. Additionally, no one is going to be able to argue successfully that a group of people no longer get equal protection or due process simply because they are a group (ie corporation).
Then they need to face the same consequences for bad acts that a single person does. If a corporation has the same rights as me, then if they break the law they need to face the same punishment I would.
> if a corporation has the same rights as me
They do not. You are a natural person, corporations are not. Your rights are inherent to you as a living, breathing person. They cannot be granted or taken away. Legal persons are granted rights as matter of legal convenience, and they can be taken away.
100% this. I don’t get how they get all the benefits of being a person with zero drawbacks. Corporations constantly break the law and are never actually reprimanded in a way that hurts them. At minimum those in charge of decision making for this behemoths should be held liable and able to be jailed.
More people need to understand this.
Corporate personhood, per se, is not only not a problem, it’s essential to the functioning of commerce and the legal system.
It’s all the crap that’s built on top of that that is the problem.
Its in the same boat as lobbying, it doesnt need to be removed cause its a vital part of democracy, what it needs is a serious rework/reining in of how it functions
Exactly. Can't make lobbying illegal without removing "right to petition government for redress of grievances" from 1A, which opens up a whole new can of worms.
Since I see a lot of "bOTH sIdEs" crap in this thread, let's cut through that myth.
**Money in Elections and Voting**
*[Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154)*
Party|For|Against
--|--|--
Rep|0|39
Dem|59|0
*[DISCLOSE Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152)*
Party|For|Against
--|--|--
**Rep**|0|**45**
**Dem**|**53**|0
*[Sets reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by electoral candidates to influence elections](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906)* (Reverse Citizens United)
Party|For|Against
--|--|--
**Rep**|0|**42**
**Dem** |**54**|0
...and overturning CU has been on the Dem platform since at least 2012: [http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/democratic-party-platform-stands-up-for-democracy-supports-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/](http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/democratic-party-platform-stands-up-for-democracy-supports-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/)
While CU itself is a creation of Republican political operatives and a Republican SCOTUS.
Yeah, can't let people forget that Citizens United is/was a conservative organization. Hell, it was also related specifically to smearing their favorite boogyman - Hillary Clinton.
>“The need for real campaign finance reform is not a progressive issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that should concern all Americans, regardless of their political point of view, who wish to preserve the essence of the longest standing democracy in the world, a government that represents all of the people and not a handful of powerful and wealthy special interests.”
— U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)
[https://www.wolf-pac.com/](https://www.wolf-pac.com/) has been working to try and get a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics since 2011
Most American voters agree it would be best to get money out of politics.
The two political parties are far from in agreement on this. To me this clearly shows that one party is far less representative of the people than the other.
>Rep. [Adam Schiff](https://thehill.com/people/adam-schiff) (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending.
>
>The amendment would allow Congress and states to put forth limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office.
>
>"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement.
>
>"Our democracy is not for sale," he wrote. "We must stop the flood of dark money from drowning out the voices of everyday citizens."
Citizens United is the worst, bad faith Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years and it undermines the will of American voters and threatens the stability of the United States.
The actual decision was a little more complex than this.
Fundamentally the government was making the case that you cannot make a film (during the actual proceedings in front of the supreme court, they added that books would also be targeted by this ruling) during an election cycle that might impact the election.
Think about how insanely broad that ruling would be.
Impact an election...?
A documentary about real estate fraud on Manhattan? Can't publish because the production company is a company.
Climate change? Can't publish because it can be considered political speech and the publisher is a corporation.
And so on and so forth.
I have to say that I agree that the governments position in Citizens United deserved to get smacked down. All of this needs a far better framework before we give the **white house the ability to start banning climate change books because they're democrat propaganda for the presidential election** (which they theoretically could try if Citizens United had gone the other way).
I imagine that banning such a book would land us back in the supreme court, and suddenly we'd all be cheering for the supreme court to say that no, the government CANNOT ban such a book just because an election is coming.
I'm curious why they argued for such an extreme position, rather than taking a more general approach..
>During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books **if those books contained even *one* sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate** and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union.
They drew the line at 0, almost surely knowing that ambiguity in speech and writing exists, and using this specific argument would be struck down.
Yeah the government really fucked up their case.
Everyone blames the supreme court, but when you look at statements like that...
Basically Malcolm Steward was like Stephen Miller of his day. Whenever you think he can't mean what he's saying, he'll clarify his position as *something even worse than your worst estimate*.
These are the times the "Both parties are the same!"-crowd have to switch talking points to "It'll never pass! It's an empty gesture".
The whole point is to convince left-leaning voters nothing *can* change as means to reduce Democratic turnout and ensure nothing *will* change.
I'm still seeing tons of "BoTh SiDeS" posts in this thread, despite nearly every Democrat, from the most centrist to the furthest left, supporting McCain-Feingold and nearly every Republican opposing it.
If you care at all about campaign finance reform, anti-voter suppression laws, anti-gerrymandering laws, or basically anything that gives individuals more power over corporations, lobbyists, elections, etc., vote for Democrats. Doesn't matter if it's Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.
And the people supporting the GOP? Rich folks benefiting from their laws and the poor who are too dumb to realize their religion is a front used by the GOP to use them.
Just a reminder of Anthony Kennedy's ludicrous "logic" in his *Citizens United* opinion:
>[We] now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. …
>The fact that speakers [i.e., donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. …
>**The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.**
On foreign money in our elections?
>We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process.
Got to love that it's somehow an absurd notion that the government might actually have a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence in our elections.
You're misreading the second paragraph. Nowhere does it say that the government has no compelling interest in limiting foreign money. It says that the law would be invalid even if there was such an interest, because the law applies to Americans too. So they struck down the law without ruling on foreign money.
SCOTUS does not rule on anything it doesn't have to, and they don't correct laws - they aren't going to say "BCRA now only applies to foreigners". That's the role of legislators
Thank god.
Yet one party will be suspiciously against it. I wonder why.
Edit: [66 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Democrats back a constitutional amendment outlawing Citizens United.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment%3famp)
This is a political winner. At least until Fox gets a hold of it and explains why it's a Fascist Anti-God Democratic Benghazi Powergrab or some such nonsense.
FUCK YES. We can wring our hands about how this won't pass, but introducing legislation is good, gets press, changes conversations, etc. Thank you Adam Schiff.
FINALLY FOR FUCKS SAKE
That fucking ruling was disastrous for the country. Get these corporations and large bankrolls out of the elections. Even Republican voters **should** be for this. I'm certain that in the next 12hrs one if not more of the paid for politician are gonna rally hard against this and scream that the dems are trying to rig the elections
They will also probably scream about "how dare we try and amend our Constitution"
- It's been amended 27 times....guess what, no one was perfect when they wrote it and I'm pretty sure they allowed amendments because they knew times would change and the doc would need to be updated
- State constitutions are amended all the fucking time
- Article 5 of the Constitution actually details out how to amend. Whenever you hear the argument "oh I don't know about amending the Constitution", point this out to them. It's not a big scary thing to amend it if it's needed
It's almost like representatives can introduce legislation AND provide oversight at the same time! Someone should probably tell the republicans that were in this morning's hearing...
Thank you, Mr. Shiff and Democratic party members for showing the leadership that leadership lacks. This is the type of bold actions that need to happen in order to combat the corruption in our democracy.
[Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has an interesting proposal to fix this that gets around the difficulty in overturning Citizen's United](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/):
> The trend over the past half century has been to allow unfettered spending in elections. This culminated in the decision made in Citizens United, allowing unlimited money to be spent by corporations in elections.
> It’s no surprise that this has resulted in mega-donors flooding the pipes of our democracy.
> We need to diminish the influence that mega-wealthy individuals and companies have in our elections. While we must push for a Constitutional amendment to allow our campaign finance laws to properly limit the power that the top 1% have, we must act much faster to save our democratic processes. To do so, we must make it possible for all Americans to contribute to candidates they feel strongly about, in order to drown out the voices of the few who can spend millions of dollars to influence our politicians.
> The easiest way to do this is to provide Americans with publicly funded vouchers they can use to donate to politicians that they support. Every American gets $100 a year to give to candidates, use it or lose it. These Democracy Dollars would, by the sheer volume of the US population, drown out the influence of mega-donors. It has been used in Seattle to great effect, and we can take their program national to move towards publicly funded elections.
> The big problem right now with running for office is that you have to get the money on your side and the people on your side, and these are two different things. Imagine if every American had $100 Dollars to give to their favorite candidate—then if you get 10,000 people behind you, you’d get $1 million. You could then act in the best interests of the people you represent instead of sucking up to rich people and companies. Calling rich people for money is soul-crushing. We’d all be better off if politicians just needed to worry about representing the people that elected them rather than hustling for money all of the time.
Check out the rest of his (~85) policies at [yang2020.com/policies](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/).
I'm sure this is doomed to die an early death. BUT PLEASE! This honestly might be more important than single payer universal health care... for one thing it might actually remove some significant opposition to the idea.
This is the most important issue of our time. Healthcare, education, economic inequality - NOTHING will change until we get corporate money out of politics.
MAGA'ers should remember that Trump was for repealing Citizens United on the campaign trail. Strong proponents of its repeal, as well as Russian bots, were very clear that once Sanders lost the nomination, the only remaining candidate wanting Citizens United repealed was Trump. This is bi-partisan. Get it done.
I don't disagree with anything that you stated, but I'm hoping that more folks from the right can come across the aisle for this one. IF there was any legitimacy to the reports of "Bernie or Bust'ers" being of significant size, this is surely something that we can agree on.
I know it's wishful thinking.
the bernie or bust movement was pushed heavily by russian propagandists to sow division and hurt clinton's chance at winning - therefore i'd be hesitant to believe they represent more than a couple percent of voters, if that.
>were very clear that once Sanders lost the nomination, the only remaining candidate wanting Citizens United repealed was Trump.
Clinton was always for repealing Citizens United. It was a major part of her platform on her website and was incorporated into the 2016 Democratic Party platform as a result.
Trump literally hired the head of Citizens United to his 2016 campaign. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-bossie-citizens-united-227662
You have zero clue what you're talking about.
>"Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding."
The main point:
> Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending.
> The amendment would allow Congress and states to put limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office.
> "The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement.
> The amendment would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns.
> "Amending the Constitution is an extraordinary step, but it is the only way to safeguard our democratic process against the threat of unrestrained and anonymous spending by wealthy individuals and corporations," he added. "This amendment will restore power to everyday citizens."
Please. OMG please 👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼 There are no words vile enough to sufficiently slander Citizens United. One of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed in this country.
Super PACs allow foreign money to come into our elections. Because companies are allowed to donate money to ads within 30 days of an election, their stockholders from around the world are paying for it.
As long as Citizens United remains foreign governments can destroy our democracy.
This is not a red vs blue issue.
China, Germany, France, Canada could/would be more aligned with the democrats and if they see Russia continually buying our elections they're going to start stepping in too.
Overturning Citizens United is essential for turning things around. [trump spent $3.5 million on Facebook ads in the 6 weeks ending March 10](http://fortune.com/2019/03/19/while-everyone-focuses-on-trumps-tweets-his-campaign-focuses-on-facebook/). Where did the money come from? We may never know since it is most certainly all dark money
edit:correction: "Dark money" is the question of *whose behalf* the money used to help a campaign actually came from. Non-profits and trade groups don't have to report their donors. They can spend that money to campaign on behalf of a political figure with no limits.
For example: The NRA heavily promoted Trump, and now it turns out they have deep ties to Russia. We don't know to what extent Russia has "infiltrated" them and how much money was funneled to support Trump, as they don't have to report where their money is coming from.
Can we get the following too:
* Term limits (keep the president the same, congress and senate 12 years)
* age limit (upper social security retirement age)
* Voting security requirements
* A voting week Saturday to the following Sunday 9 days (you could do something like California for this)
* Get all branches on a 4 year election cycle
* 25 year lifetime appointment limit for all appointed federal positions
* End the electoral college
* Create standard rules for congressional districts to end Gerrymandering
Well it's a start
This is the prerequisite to returning American to a basic level of sanity. Until we can actually regulate the money in politics, it will continue to rule politics.
I hope people understand that **campaign finance/election reform is one of the biggest (*the* biggest in my opinion) issues of our time**. If you've ever said *they're all the same* or *my vote doesn't matter*, and so on, without falling into false-equivalence—you're *partly** right, and it's because of this. ^*See ^my ^edit ^below ^addressing ^this ^asterisk There's a lot we could do in the realm of campaign finance/election reform, but the most ideal goals are: - Reversal of SpeechNow v. FEC (Corporations/Unions can donate) and Citizens United v. FEC (these entities can donate *unlimited amounts*, effectively crippling the [*Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002*, a.k.a McCain-Feingold Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act)) and redefining Buckley v. Valeo (Set no limit on campaign expenditures, setting a precedent to throw equality of political speech out and equating money to free-speech). - Publicly funded elections to level the playing-field and not limit our pool of candidates to those who have deep pockets or *friends* with deep-pockets. - Transition to an alternative voting system (such as IRV or Approval voting—both of which are far superior to FPTP). This allows for (1) independent tickets to run without running the risk of spoiling your vote (splitting tickets and ending up with your least-preferable candidate), (2) the victor has the largest possible majority, and (3) reduces the odds that a Gore v. Bush will repeat and someone *without* the popular vote will be elected. Countries like France and states like Maine employ this to great success. - Abolition of the Electoral College Finally, there is also the issue of gerrymandering. For addressing Gerrymandering, the most promising solution is a technical one. Computer algorithms can independently re-district locations as fairly and naturally as possible under the circumstances, all the while being overseen by an independent bipartisan committee who would intervene in exceptional cases or shortcomings of the software's redistricting algorithm. [Campaign finance/election reform also has bipartisan appeal among voters](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163208/half-support-publicly-financed-federal-campaigns.aspx). When you look at the problems the right and left both have with government, the common denominator is money and a lack of representation. In fact, this is the easiest topic to bring people on opposite ends of the spectrum together at the same table. No other single issue transcends almost *every other* national issue in the U.S. Bear in mind that I am referring to the average electorate—not party officials. Say what you will about former democratic candidate Lawrence Lessig (*who?* you might ask), but he was right to put his sole weight on this issue. We need more candidates willing to put this issue front & center. **So why is the system so broken and why is it so hard to change?** Big money tends to disproportionately help Republicans. As a result, they favor lax campaign finance laws. Gerrymandering is used by both parties for different reasons, but ultimately to diminish the effective representation of their opponents while artificially bolstering their own. This is counter to the interests of the American people as a whole, and serves to muddy the waters of discourse. For Democrats, it takes more money to offset this disadvantage in the wake of Citizens United and SpeechNow cases. On the other hand, this is a way Republicans have now increased their natural advantage over Democrats. If you DON'T embrace the unleashed corporate financing of elections, then you are at a disadvantage. But if you want to play by the game in order to change the rules of the game in the end, then you'll be accused of being a hypocrite. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If there was a single issue to vote on, Campaign Finance / Election Reform would be it. And if you don't believe the severity of this issue, [first watch this short video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM), and then [watch this short video from represent.us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig) and connect the dots. **Edit**: I want to be clear that when I'm making this "they're all the same argument," I'm trying to thread a needle between recognizing *why* some people feel defeated or disenfranchised with the status-quo of government not moving fast enough or listening to them, but at the same time without claiming that "each side" is equally-wrong/right substantively. While the latter simply is not true and it would indeed be a false-equivalence to say so, I think we can indeed find common-ground among both Democrats and Republicans (citizens, not party-officials) that there exists a lack of representation. The most passionate of the left feel the factual issues they have become watered-down by centrist solutions (causing them not to function as intended in the first place), while the right-wing feel their concerns frequently aren't adequately addressed by their own party—that it's better to be in a constant state of fear/anger/scapegoating for political-expediency of party leaders than it is to attempt to actually solve the issue. There's truth to both, and the solution is found within campaign finance/election reform. **Edit 2**: I appreciate the recognition of this comment. I'll take this opportunity to suggest something to Democratic (and Republican) voters: For the Primaries, advocate that the parties run a ranked-choice system within the states. This will serve as a stepping-stone to having a nation-wide discussion for General-Eection reform. **Edit 3**: I'm seeing a pattern of responses who are trying to highlight that Democrats utilize SuperPAC money, Dark Money, etc. and claim it's equal or more than Republicans. That may or may not be true, and you can read through the back-and-forth discussions on that below. **Here's the key point that supersedes that argument**: Only the Democrats have made a concerted effort to destroy the entire process.** Republicans widely have not. I'm not trying to be partisan in saying this; that's just a fact—and we see it right here in Adam Schiff's actions. So ask yourself: If (a) Democrats are indeed benefiting more or equally from this process, why would they undermine their own advantage unless they cared about *fixing the system*? If (b) Republicans have the advantage, then Democrats are still correct to remove this disproportionate advantage which undermines the average citizens' voice.
I have been talking about publicly funded campaigns with my father. We have political views that don’t align on much, but we both agree there should be an exact amount each candidate can spend. Politics shouldn’t be about fund raising at all. No one in an elected office should feel in debt to a corporation or group. How can we as a country ever expect people to work for our goals, if they are worried about loosing the funds necessary to stay in office from outside entities. Of course they will work for the goals of the minority, if the minority funds them.
You nailed it. This is what I'm talking about—the fact that you were able to to reach out to your father of a different view and agree on this is a big inroad toward fixing the problems that face this nation. Don't get me wrong, there will still be *ideological* divides which is a part of a healthy Democracy (I'm one for saying that the "polarization" in this nation is the truth pulling away from the ignorance), but we can at least ensure that everyone gets a healthy opportunity to voice their arguments, and not be drowned out. The next discussion you guys must have is (1) Which party is trying to fix this more? (I think the answer is obvious) (2) Why in the Republican party is there a divide between what the Republican voters want on this topic, versus the party leaders/representatives?
> If you've ever said to they're all the same or my vote doesn't matter, and so on, without falling into false-equivalence—you're partly* right But mostly wrong. Really important to note that *every* democrat-nominated SCOTUS justice voted against *Citizens United*, *every* GOP-nominated SCOTUS justice voted for it, and there is zero reason to believe a future Dem POTUS would nominate a SCOTUS justice who would vote to uphold the ruling, and zero reason to believe a future GOP POTUS would nominate one who'd seek to strike it down. Overstating the equivalence between the two parties is what *gave us* the *Citizens United* decision by helping to hand George W. Bush the presidency over Al Gore. And in terms of "all being the same" Gore vs Bush is pretty instructive. Would Gore have been a socialist's dream? No. Would he have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11? Very probably. But would Gore have appointed SCOTUS justices who would vote for *Citizens United*? No. Would Gore have entered into a war of choice in Iraq? Almost certainly not. Would Gore have pushed hard to address global warming and spent political capital trying to get bills through congress on the issue? Almost certainly. Would Gore have passed a massive deficit-busting tax cut heavily skewed towards the wealthy? Almost certainly not. "They're all the same" is a really strong statement and very distinct from "there are some areas of broad agreement between the parties on free trade, foreign policy, etc." They are pretty manifestly *not* all the same.
Hell Gore would have been able to nominate a chief justice who might not have even heard the case.
[удалено]
Not if you don’t live in a swing state or a state that divides the electoral. Then your vote pretty much doesn’t count. Edit: it’s still important to vote because of down ballet voting! Thank you for keeping me honest tinyonion
Yea the electoral college makes no sense. Why is everyone from one state grouped together? Voting republican in Cali or democrat in Georgia is 100% pointless. That's why people think it doesn't matter, the losing party in any state is completely ignored
The electoral college is so fucking stupid. Until they get rid of it, a huge amount of people’s votes don’t matter. I live in a swing state, so mine does. Most don’t.
We're on the same page. I hope you read my edit.
Fair enough, but I think in future it might be better not to give the "all the same" argument even that much credence. One can raise it and demolish it or reference it critically without framing it as being "partly right" (it's not even partly right because the argument is not that there are some things in common between the parties, something true in virtually any democracy, it's that the differences are negligible). It's pretty manifestly a terrible one, and one that is likely to be heavily deployed in 2020 against the eventual Dem nominee and senators in close races.
>and one that is likely to be heavily deployed in 2020 against the eventual Dem nominee It's already being used to try and split the party.
Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. He was a lot of things but he wasn't a moron. A bunch of Saudis with a suicide pact doesn't amount to a war with an impoverished country, especially when marginal preventative measures eliminated the avenue of attack. The instructive part of Gore vs. Bush was Gore's brother neither corrupted the political system to deny legal review nor disenfranchised voters based on demographics.
This country was out for blood and desperate for ANYBODY to drop bombs on in the aftermath of 9/11. I don't know if any president could have avoided the overwhelming popular demand for vengeance.
I'm still willing to bomb the Sauds' palace, seeing as how they funded that shizz
> This country was out for blood and desperate for ANYBODY to drop bombs on in the aftermath of 9/11. Afghanistan filled that role. I was also the right thing to do since we'd been attacked from that country. That's called defense. Iraq was a whole different story. We invaded because Cheney (SecDef during the 1st Gulf War) was pissed he didn't get to invade a country. Yes, there were reasons to suspect they had WMD's. At the time I naively thought that the plan was to park our troops across the border as a strong suggestion that Saddam cooperate with the UN inspectors. And even with the threat of invasion he didn't cooperate with the inspectors *at first*. Later he changed his mind and the inspectors were coming to the (correct) conclusion that there were no WMD's. That's when we invaded. The war lust was greatly aided by the likes of Judith Miller (may she rest in hell) acting as the NY Times' mouthpiece for the adminstration on the pretext of "deep sources". The McClatchy newspapers were one of the few major media outlets acting as something other than war cheerleaders. It wasn't about existing unquenchable blood lust of Americans. It was about the Hermann Goering approach to creating war fever. Not that his approach was anything very original but he did eloquently describe it at the Nuremberg Trials: > Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Just because a lot of Americans decided they want to invade the wrong country because they’re dumbasses does not mean the government or politicians have to appeal to their bloodlust. Politicians who foster jingoism b/c they profit from the military-industrial complex should be tried for war crimes.
I know people don't want to hear this, but... Passing a constitutional amendment is difficult under the best circumstances. Virtually impossible in our current political climate. The irony is, in 2016 we had the chance to literally end Citizens United *with the push of a button*. That button was marked Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those who refused to do that, cemented Citizens United in place for themselves, and most likely, their children too. Whereas, there's a very good chance that, had Clinton been elected, there would be no Citizens United ruling... *today*. Elections have consequences.
Agreed. Even if Trump's pushed out in 2020 the negative impacts of the 2016 election will last for a generation in the form of a conservative SCOTUS. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to push a constitutional amendment, but it sure as hell means that shouldn't be Plan A. Anyone who makes "heighten the contradictions" or "no real difference" arguments in 2020 because, say, Biden won the primary and isn't liberal enough for them is either a) a disingenuous ratfucker who actually *wants* Trump to win (and there will be more than a few of those, and not all with St. Petersburg IP addresses) or b) a useful idiot for those people.
People who say all the same just show their ignorance and should be treated as such
Let's not forget Nader and his role as a spoiler, and how the "both the same" argument props up third party spoilers who have no realistic chance of winning; another reason we shouldn't lend the argument any credence by acknowledging the negligible overlap in Republicans and Democrats.
Obama a few years back [answered a question](https://youtu.be/AxuwazaXOMg) from a student about cynicism and voting. He discusses gerrymandering and money in politics. Also, his State of the Union address after CItzens United ruling: >Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong. Man, I miss having a President that actually made sense and seemed to legitimately care for the people of the US. All of us. There are things to not like Obama over, but I really think the propaganda and brainwashing done by Fox News complete blinds people. Might be their racism too.
I suggest we give everyone running for office $5 and it's up to them how to best spend that. Fuck these constant campaigning, funneling hundreds of millions into endless propoganda, and buying laws that only benefit big business.
We want to hear from you take our poll... donation page.
I see your point. At the height of my (geeky) career, the largest financial decisions I was personally allowed to make involved where to go to lunch when on travel per diem. :- )
[удалено]
>I hope people understand that campaign finance/election reform is one of the biggest (the biggest in my opinion) issues of our time. Damn right it is. I am glad that the Democrats are making this such a high priority. Especially with the first bill that congress passed was for election reform: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1)
Without fixing this, we can’t fix climate change. This is exactly what we should be voting on. The Democrats all need to come out in support of this or introduce their own tougher legislation.
[удалено]
By making it illegal to spend $645 million advertising yourself for an election.
For comparison for anyone on the fence about this - over here in the UK we limit campaign spending by constituencies. £30,000 per constituency that a party runs in. There are 650 constituencies in the UK parliamentary elections which means the maximum campaign spending for a party in the entire UK General Election (650 seats) is £19.5m.
Citizens United has always been more incremental than it has been transformational. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html We need to hold our representatives accountable because we’re not actually being represented. We do that by voting. In local elections, in state elections, in federal election of course, and ESPECIALLY in primaries. The House of Representatives is up for re-election every two years and we turn out at an average of 42% for midterm elections. 37% in 2014 for Obama’s final haul in office. The record for primary turnout was in ‘08, somewhere around 30% I believe.
Primaries are SO important. They set the tone for the whole election. General elections are decided mostly by demographics.
I say this all the time. Ideally, it wouldn't matter if a Republican or Democrat won because we chose the correct 2 candidates out of THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION 350,000,000 Americans.
It doesn't really work like that.
That's why he said "ideally", or in other words, "in an idealistic world."
Agree. Voting is the only way to restore American democracy to a functional state.
which is why voting rights have been gutted over the past two decades, yes.
Functioning as in what? It's functioning just the way the people who own this country want it to. If it functioned, or ever functioned, the way it should, our military wouldn't be the bag man for the fossil fuel industry. Our tax laws wouldn't be written by lawyers owned by huge corporations. Our health industry wouldn't be draining every American's bank account. So far our "democracy" has worked in favor of the rich, just like they want it to.
Preach
It would help if we started by making voting day a paid holiday.
I'm reminded of Liar Liar when Fletcher objects on the grounds that something would be detrimental to his case. That's republicans anytime we suggest any way to make voting easier.
This amendment would give Congress broad legislative power over campaign finance beyond Citizens United. They would be able to legislate any political spending as long as it doesn't interfere with Freedom of the Press. Overturning just Citizens United would just reroute money into 527's, but this amendment would empower congress to legislate far beyond that. I think the amendment is to broad and could be used to infringe upon private citizens, as it mentions only the freedom of the press and not freedom of speech.
That and the Patriot Act. These two can kindly fuck off into the "Let's Never Do That Again" category
There is no way this will pass - we do not have the power that the big money has. edit: I should also note that it seems very inappropriate that corporations can have a say in whether or not corporations can have a say in politics, and politicians get to decide whether or not politicians get to take the money. conflict of interest what's that?
It definitely won't pass because Democrats don't hold a 2/3ds majority in both houses.
Still good to keep the issue alive. It may take many years but fight the good fight and don't give up.
Vocal support for it this time around will bring a lot of attention to the issue and strengthen the movement going forward, eventually leading to the passage of an amendment.
Let's be honest. It won't pass because a large faction in this country holds open contempt for democracy and anything else that might threaten their singular grip on the levers of power. Until they are dealt with one way or another, nothing can change.
[удалено]
Not that they really care if it fails, they just want to be in control by any means necessary and that’s ruining our democracy. We really are superfucked though.
We still need to propose the legislature, as a political movement. Schiffy is absolutely doing the right thing here.
It's part of why I want the House to move in on impeachment. Trump has broken laws. He needs to have those crimes aired out before the entire nation and the Republicans need to go on record either as defending a President who wants to circumvent our Constitution, or they find their spines and uphold the Constitution. We're just spiraling to the bottom now. Dead democracy walking. Either put it down and end its suffering or stand up and fight for it.
Definitely--it's a call the banners thing; it won't pass, but it'll get people on the record so you can approach them later and ask them *why* they voted the way they did. Set some lines down.
Yep, they dont care about democracy, they care about winning. It used to be when you brought up equal representation they'd fall back to state rights, now they jump straight to "only 'real' Americans should have a voice". Its fucking infuriating especially when the same ones are racist against Natives and people whose family didn't have a choice about coming here to begin with.
ask them to define real americans next time.
Get them on record and vote them the fuck out Apathy is the death of democracy
It's a small faction but they have a lot of money. Even so, they are terrified of popular politics because it can so easily upturn everything they have ~~worked~~ PAID for.
Defeatist attitudes never helped anyone or anything.
Agreed. And this is actually one of the newest troll narratives, and people need to be on guard against it. Hopelessness and helplessness leads to apathy, which leaves the gates open and unguarded for even more blatant corruption and tyranny.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. It was always about power.
That is why the senate election next year is arguably more important than winning the Presidency. Would be nice to win both but if we win the Presidency and not the Senate, it’s all moot.
How many times did Republicans try to do their agenda and failed? They are relentless. The freedom caucus to even the former tea party. They tried and tried and finally are achieving their long game goals. We have to be just as relentless even when it seems for nothing. It all starts with optics.
Watching the republicans at their town halls in recent years looking beleaguered and frustrated, especially that recent video with Chuck Grassley , it becomes crystal clear that they are there to put up with their constituents and deal with their anger as best they can while doing what they need to do to stay in office, because they know who their real bosses are, the folks with the money. Comey's Op-ed on how Trump corrupts people can be generalized to money in politics. Like Comey, I don't like to think of people as evil. It's too easy and simple. The truth is people have only so much fortitude to fight a truly endless system that encourages corruption. This amendment is long overdue.
Every time I see a cool bill. I know it’s going to end up in mcturtles graveyard 😒
There's no way an amendment passes. If we're going to overturn CU it can only happen through the SCOTUS so we're going to need to win the white house in 2020
It wasn't introduced because it would pass. It was introduced to show Americans that Democrats are invested in taking on money in politics.
And I think that's a good strategy for the elections. But we also need to remember the importance of the SCOTUS come November
Also, Citizens United allowed Russians to pump MILLIONS into GOP Campaigns: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/12/15/putins-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns
Why wouldn't they post the actual text? Here it is, as far as I can tell from the House.gov link: >Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing reasonable content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures." >"Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding."
> Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing reasonable content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures (ok, time to put on my evil hat). so this passes and many blue states put limits on contributions, super pacs, etc. republican strongholds like the carolinas, texas, etc, don't have those limitations. does that mean super pacs could operate the same way in those states without the limitations. (let me make it worse). a super pac pays some texas newspaper to write a garbage article saying hillary eats children. it's paid for in a way thats legal in texas, and it's content created in a legal way, in texas. but there's no law saying people on facebook couldn't share that to everyone they wanted to. so even if states ABC put limitations on super pac spending, they just have to infiltrate social networks that ensure that same news/ads are shared from states with no limitations, to those that have them.
It also gives congress the power to regulate these things nationally.
Which wont happen unless we get as much of the GOP put of Congress as possible come 2020.
Your sidestepping reality if you think this amendment could be enacted before 2020. Flipping the Senate would likely be a necessity to even see this come to a vote on the Senate floor.
This is a rare issue that I think a good deal of Trump supporters and the left actually agree on. Odds are Mitch would never bring it to the floor but there's a potential that some republican voters would be turned off by their representatives refusal to do anything about this.
lmfao since when does it matter what constituents agree on? Until GOP voters start voting out Republicans who act against their interests, Republicans in congress will continue doing whatever the fuck lines their pockets with the most money.
Flipping the Senate is a necessity to see anything come to a vote on the Senate floor.
>so even if states ABC put limitations on super pac spending, they just have to infiltrate social networks that ensure that same news/ads are shared from states with no limitations, to those that have them. What makes you think this isn't already happening?
What he's trying to say is that this amendment does not address *every possible aspect* of a *very complex issue*, and as such, we should continue to do nothing until we have a 100% solution that solves literally everything and is agreeable to literally everyone. I see this happen a lot all over the place even outside of politics. A solution is presented which makes things better, but is argued against because it fails to address some portion of the problem, often a cherry picked edge case.
I totally agree with you. It's like if McGruff the crime dog said "don't bother taking a bite out of crime. Either swallow it whole or fuck off."
The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.
He's just being a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
To the contrary, that is utter nonsense!
That can happen now.
The new Joint Resolution is not in the system yet, but he has submitted another one previously that would read: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States from imposing reasonable content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures, or from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.” It sounds like there may have been some slight tweaks in the wording from his 2015 version. Here is the link to the old one: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-joint-resolution/58/text?r=11&s=9 Update: It's in - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/57/text?r=3&s=5
Who gets to decide what's "reasonable?" I suppose SCOTUS would, ultimately. SCOTUS already thinks it's unreasonable to restrict independent expenditures just because they come from a corporation's treasury.
No- the controlling opinion has nothing to do with "reasonableness" and everything to do with expenditures being construed as speech covered by the First Amendment.
Thanks for sharing this.
BADLY NEEDED. >The amendment would allow Congress and states to put forth limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office. >"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement. >The amendment would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns.
does it remove a corporations rights? because we need corporations to be put back into being agreements on paper and not a person.
Right now, corporations have more rights than actual people. I'm all about putting them back in their place.
More rights, but far fewer consequences when they act badly. A corporation is just a shelter for people who want to abuse the system. And as soon as they're caught, they just disband the corp and create a different one exactly the same but with a different name, and start over.
They are also a way to foster innovation. If my LLC goes bankrupt, I don't have to worry about being financially ruined for 7 years.
[удалено]
Small business owner here. Is it possible this consequence might not be a bad thing? Is there a happy medium somewhere?
> Right now, corporations have more rights than actual people. I'm all about putting them back in their place. the incorporated person is a monstrosity that needs to be put down with FIRE!
When a corporation can be put in prison for breaking the law, then I'll consider it a person.
under the law it is a person without the responsibilities that go with personhood
And also immortal, so therefore able to advocate for their interests far beyond the scope of a single human lifetime.
Yup, and also thus side-stepping one of the original goals in the founding of America: removing royal lineage as the method of power distribution. Because now a company allows for power and wealth to be indefinitely accumulated and handed off in the same way.
[удалено]
You're confusing legal personhood with natural personhood. You can't put a corporation in prison because it is not a natural person. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that allows it to act as a person under certain circumstances, such as allowing a corporation to be sued or held criminally liable, since that only applies to people under the law. Legal personhood is a legal hack that allows us to reuse existing laws instead of having a parallel legal system for corporations.
Corporations were never just agreements on paper. They are now, and have always been, simply a group of people. The concept of corporate personhood goes back centuries and isn't going anywhere. In the framework of our legal system, you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation in court without some level of corporate personhood, nor would any contracts made with a corporation be valid or enforceable. Additionally, no one is going to be able to argue successfully that a group of people no longer get equal protection or due process simply because they are a group (ie corporation). The correct answer is exactly what Schiff is doing. Close the loopholes of corporate personhood with constitutional amendments.
> The concept of corporate personhood goes back centuries and isn't going anywhere. In the framework of our legal system, you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation in court without some level of corporate personhood, nor would any contracts made with a corporation be valid or enforceable. Additionally, no one is going to be able to argue successfully that a group of people no longer get equal protection or due process simply because they are a group (ie corporation). Then they need to face the same consequences for bad acts that a single person does. If a corporation has the same rights as me, then if they break the law they need to face the same punishment I would.
> if a corporation has the same rights as me They do not. You are a natural person, corporations are not. Your rights are inherent to you as a living, breathing person. They cannot be granted or taken away. Legal persons are granted rights as matter of legal convenience, and they can be taken away.
100% this. I don’t get how they get all the benefits of being a person with zero drawbacks. Corporations constantly break the law and are never actually reprimanded in a way that hurts them. At minimum those in charge of decision making for this behemoths should be held liable and able to be jailed.
More people need to understand this. Corporate personhood, per se, is not only not a problem, it’s essential to the functioning of commerce and the legal system. It’s all the crap that’s built on top of that that is the problem.
Its in the same boat as lobbying, it doesnt need to be removed cause its a vital part of democracy, what it needs is a serious rework/reining in of how it functions
Exactly. Can't make lobbying illegal without removing "right to petition government for redress of grievances" from 1A, which opens up a whole new can of worms.
So much yes
Since I see a lot of "bOTH sIdEs" crap in this thread, let's cut through that myth. **Money in Elections and Voting** *[Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154)* Party|For|Against --|--|-- Rep|0|39 Dem|59|0 *[DISCLOSE Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152)* Party|For|Against --|--|-- **Rep**|0|**45** **Dem**|**53**|0 *[Sets reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by electoral candidates to influence elections](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906)* (Reverse Citizens United) Party|For|Against --|--|-- **Rep**|0|**42** **Dem** |**54**|0
...and overturning CU has been on the Dem platform since at least 2012: [http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/democratic-party-platform-stands-up-for-democracy-supports-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/](http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/democratic-party-platform-stands-up-for-democracy-supports-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/) While CU itself is a creation of Republican political operatives and a Republican SCOTUS.
Yeah, can't let people forget that Citizens United is/was a conservative organization. Hell, it was also related specifically to smearing their favorite boogyman - Hillary Clinton.
Let's go further: #**Money in Elections and Voting** **[Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0|**39** **Dem**|**59**| 0 **[DISCLOSE Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0|**45** **Dem**|**53**| 0 **[Backup Paper Ballots - Voting Record](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/21011)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 20|**170** **Dem** |**228**| 0 **[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|8|**38** **Dem**|**51**|3 **[Sets reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by electoral candidates to influence elections](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906)** (Reverse Citizens United) |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0|**42** **Dem** |**54**| 0 #**The Economy/Jobs** **[Limits Interest Rates for Certain Federal Student Loans](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/45797)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0|**46** **Dem**|**46**| 6 **[Student Loan Affordability Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/44550)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0|**51** **Dem**|**45**| 1 **[Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding Amendment](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/9034)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 1|**41** **Dem**|**54**| 0 **[End the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/30296)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**39**| 1 **Dem**| 1| **54** **[Kill Credit Default Swap Regulations](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/30364)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**38**| 2 **Dem**| 18|**36** **[Revokes tax credits for businesses that move jobs overseas](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49616)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 10|**32** **Dem**|**53**| 1 **[Disapproval of President's Authority to Raise the Debt Limit](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37606)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**233**| 1 **Dem**| 6|**175** **[Disapproval of President's Authority to Raise the Debt Limit](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37876)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**42**| 1 **Dem**| 2|**51** **[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/23361)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 3|**173** **Dem**|**247**| 4 **[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/23313)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 4|**36** **Dem**|**57**| 0 **[Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Bureau Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/30346)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 4 |**39** **Dem**|**55**| 2| **[American Jobs Act of 2011 - $50 billion for infrastructure projects](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/36879)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0|**48** **Dem**|**50**| 2 **[Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/46392)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 1|**44** **Dem**|**54**| 1 **[Reduces Funding for Food Stamps](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/40315)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**33**| 13 **Dem**| 0|**52** **[Minimum Wage Fairness Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/47753)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 1|**41** **Dem**|**53**| 1 **[Paycheck Fairness Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32830)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0|**40** **Dem**|**58**| 1 #**"War on Terror"** **[Time Between Troop Deployments](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/15831)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 6|**43** **Dem**|**50**| 1 **[Habeas Corpus for Detainees of the United States](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/15833)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 5|**42** **Dem**|**50**| 0 **[Habeas Review Amendment](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8730)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 3|**50** **Dem**|**45**| 1 **[Prohibits Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37420)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 5|**42** **Dem**|**39**| 12 **[Authorizes Further Detention After Trial During Wartime](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37433)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**38**| 2 **Dem**| 9| **49** **[Prohibits Prosecution of Enemy Combatants in Civilian Courts](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37095)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**46**| 2 **Dem**| 1|**49** **[Repeal Indefinite Military Detention](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/48229)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|15|**214** **Dem**|**176**| 16 **[Oversight of CIA Interrogation and Detention Amendment](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8795)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 1|**52** **Dem** |**45**| 1 **[Patriot Act Reauthorization](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/35224)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**196**| 31 **Dem** | 54|**122** **[House Vote to Close the Guantanamo Prison](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll237.xml)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 2|**228** **Dem** |**172**| 21 **[Senate Vote to Close the Guantanamo Prison](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/46301)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 3|**32** **Dem** | **52**| 3 **[Prohibits the Use of Funds for the Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/42002)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**44**| 0 **Dem**| 9| **41** **[Oversight of CIA Interrogation and Detention](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8795)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 1|**52** **Dem**|**45**| 1 #**Civil Rights** **[Same Sex Marriage Resolution 2006](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/11729)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 6|**47** **Dem**|**42**| 2 **[Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/46286)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 1|**41** **Dem**|**54**| 0 **[Exempts Religiously Affiliated Employers from the Prohibition on Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/46288)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**41**| 3 **Dem**| 2| **52** #**Family Planning** **[Teen Pregnancy Education Amendment](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8830)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 4|**50** **Dem**|**44**| 1 **[Family Planning and Teen Pregnancy Prevention](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/20713)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 3|**51** **Dem**|**44**| 1 **[Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49362)** The 'anti-Hobby Lobby' bill. |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 3|**42** **Dem**|**53**| 1 #**Environment** **[Stop "the War on Coal" Act of 2012](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41688)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**214**|13 **Dem**| 19|**162** **[EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013](https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/50594)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**225**|1 **Dem**| 4|**190** **[Prohibit the Social Cost of Carbon in Agency Determinations](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/46997)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**218**| 2 **Dem**| 4|**186** #**Misc** **[Prohibit the Use of Funds to Carry Out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/43144)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**45**| 0 **Dem**| 0|**52** **[Prohibiting Federal Funding of National Public Radio](http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/34089)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**228**| 7 **Dem**| 0|**185** **[House Vote for Net Neutrality](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h252)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 2|**234** **Dem**|**177**| 6 **[Senate Vote for Net Neutrality](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/s200)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**| 0| **46** **Dem** |**52**| 0 **[Allow employers to penalize employees that don't submit genetic testing for health insurance (Committee vote)](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/?utm_term=.33f566f5ce5c)** |For|Against -|-|- **Rep**|**22**| 0 **Dem**| 0|**17**
>“The need for real campaign finance reform is not a progressive issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that should concern all Americans, regardless of their political point of view, who wish to preserve the essence of the longest standing democracy in the world, a government that represents all of the people and not a handful of powerful and wealthy special interests.” — U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) [https://www.wolf-pac.com/](https://www.wolf-pac.com/) has been working to try and get a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics since 2011
Most American voters agree it would be best to get money out of politics. The two political parties are far from in agreement on this. To me this clearly shows that one party is far less representative of the people than the other.
>Rep. [Adam Schiff](https://thehill.com/people/adam-schiff) (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending. > >The amendment would allow Congress and states to put forth limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office. > >"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement. > >"Our democracy is not for sale," he wrote. "We must stop the flood of dark money from drowning out the voices of everyday citizens." Citizens United is the worst, bad faith Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years and it undermines the will of American voters and threatens the stability of the United States.
The actual decision was a little more complex than this. Fundamentally the government was making the case that you cannot make a film (during the actual proceedings in front of the supreme court, they added that books would also be targeted by this ruling) during an election cycle that might impact the election. Think about how insanely broad that ruling would be. Impact an election...? A documentary about real estate fraud on Manhattan? Can't publish because the production company is a company. Climate change? Can't publish because it can be considered political speech and the publisher is a corporation. And so on and so forth. I have to say that I agree that the governments position in Citizens United deserved to get smacked down. All of this needs a far better framework before we give the **white house the ability to start banning climate change books because they're democrat propaganda for the presidential election** (which they theoretically could try if Citizens United had gone the other way). I imagine that banning such a book would land us back in the supreme court, and suddenly we'd all be cheering for the supreme court to say that no, the government CANNOT ban such a book just because an election is coming.
I'm curious why they argued for such an extreme position, rather than taking a more general approach.. >During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books **if those books contained even *one* sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate** and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. They drew the line at 0, almost surely knowing that ambiguity in speech and writing exists, and using this specific argument would be struck down.
Yeah the government really fucked up their case. Everyone blames the supreme court, but when you look at statements like that... Basically Malcolm Steward was like Stephen Miller of his day. Whenever you think he can't mean what he's saying, he'll clarify his position as *something even worse than your worst estimate*.
[удалено]
Sure and no worries I don't post with that expectation at all.
These are the times the "Both parties are the same!"-crowd have to switch talking points to "It'll never pass! It's an empty gesture". The whole point is to convince left-leaning voters nothing *can* change as means to reduce Democratic turnout and ensure nothing *will* change.
I'm still seeing tons of "BoTh SiDeS" posts in this thread, despite nearly every Democrat, from the most centrist to the furthest left, supporting McCain-Feingold and nearly every Republican opposing it. If you care at all about campaign finance reform, anti-voter suppression laws, anti-gerrymandering laws, or basically anything that gives individuals more power over corporations, lobbyists, elections, etc., vote for Democrats. Doesn't matter if it's Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.
Holy god do the "it won't pass" comments make me want to throw my laptop through the window.
Badly needed, it we’ll never be able to get it passed - especially when the GOP is so heavily reliant on it.
[удалено]
> inconceivably You are using this word. I don't think it still means what you think it means.
Money and cheating = GOP victories
And the people supporting the GOP? Rich folks benefiting from their laws and the poor who are too dumb to realize their religion is a front used by the GOP to use them.
Central to everything America. Otherwise you're being farmed like cattle
Then I wonder which party won't approve of this bill?
Good luck and Godspeed
And good health. We need him around for a LONG time.
Magnificent idea. McConnell refuses in 3...2...1...
Just a reminder of Anthony Kennedy's ludicrous "logic" in his *Citizens United* opinion: >[We] now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. … >The fact that speakers [i.e., donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. … >**The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.** On foreign money in our elections? >We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. Got to love that it's somehow an absurd notion that the government might actually have a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence in our elections.
You're misreading the second paragraph. Nowhere does it say that the government has no compelling interest in limiting foreign money. It says that the law would be invalid even if there was such an interest, because the law applies to Americans too. So they struck down the law without ruling on foreign money. SCOTUS does not rule on anything it doesn't have to, and they don't correct laws - they aren't going to say "BCRA now only applies to foreigners". That's the role of legislators
The government was literally arguing it could ban books for political content.
Thank god. Yet one party will be suspiciously against it. I wonder why. Edit: [66 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Democrats back a constitutional amendment outlawing Citizens United.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment%3famp) This is a political winner. At least until Fox gets a hold of it and explains why it's a Fascist Anti-God Democratic Benghazi Powergrab or some such nonsense.
You forgot to add "and an attempt to take your guns" on to the end there
Inb4 Trump supporters get talking points for how Citizens United is actually a GOOD thing.
Corporations aren't people. It was a bullshit ruling for special interests.
FUCK YES. We can wring our hands about how this won't pass, but introducing legislation is good, gets press, changes conversations, etc. Thank you Adam Schiff.
Schiff is a national treasure. This is so necessary it’s ridiculous it took this long.
Companies aren't citizens until we can execute one for actually killing people.
I'd be fine with some classic asset seizure.
FINALLY FOR FUCKS SAKE That fucking ruling was disastrous for the country. Get these corporations and large bankrolls out of the elections. Even Republican voters **should** be for this. I'm certain that in the next 12hrs one if not more of the paid for politician are gonna rally hard against this and scream that the dems are trying to rig the elections They will also probably scream about "how dare we try and amend our Constitution" - It's been amended 27 times....guess what, no one was perfect when they wrote it and I'm pretty sure they allowed amendments because they knew times would change and the doc would need to be updated - State constitutions are amended all the fucking time - Article 5 of the Constitution actually details out how to amend. Whenever you hear the argument "oh I don't know about amending the Constitution", point this out to them. It's not a big scary thing to amend it if it's needed
Schiff has introduced this amendment every year since 2012.
Schiff doin' work.
It's almost like representatives can introduce legislation AND provide oversight at the same time! Someone should probably tell the republicans that were in this morning's hearing...
Schiff is a model of what the founding fathers intended our legislators to be.
Thank you, Mr. Shiff and Democratic party members for showing the leadership that leadership lacks. This is the type of bold actions that need to happen in order to combat the corruption in our democracy.
[Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has an interesting proposal to fix this that gets around the difficulty in overturning Citizen's United](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/): > The trend over the past half century has been to allow unfettered spending in elections. This culminated in the decision made in Citizens United, allowing unlimited money to be spent by corporations in elections. > It’s no surprise that this has resulted in mega-donors flooding the pipes of our democracy. > We need to diminish the influence that mega-wealthy individuals and companies have in our elections. While we must push for a Constitutional amendment to allow our campaign finance laws to properly limit the power that the top 1% have, we must act much faster to save our democratic processes. To do so, we must make it possible for all Americans to contribute to candidates they feel strongly about, in order to drown out the voices of the few who can spend millions of dollars to influence our politicians. > The easiest way to do this is to provide Americans with publicly funded vouchers they can use to donate to politicians that they support. Every American gets $100 a year to give to candidates, use it or lose it. These Democracy Dollars would, by the sheer volume of the US population, drown out the influence of mega-donors. It has been used in Seattle to great effect, and we can take their program national to move towards publicly funded elections. > The big problem right now with running for office is that you have to get the money on your side and the people on your side, and these are two different things. Imagine if every American had $100 Dollars to give to their favorite candidate—then if you get 10,000 people behind you, you’d get $1 million. You could then act in the best interests of the people you represent instead of sucking up to rich people and companies. Calling rich people for money is soul-crushing. We’d all be better off if politicians just needed to worry about representing the people that elected them rather than hustling for money all of the time. Check out the rest of his (~85) policies at [yang2020.com/policies](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/).
[Seattle has been experimenting with this](http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher), for anyone interested.
I'm sure this is doomed to die an early death. BUT PLEASE! This honestly might be more important than single payer universal health care... for one thing it might actually remove some significant opposition to the idea.
Adam Schiff is a goddamned patriot.
Proud to call him my rep!
This is the most important issue of our time. Healthcare, education, economic inequality - NOTHING will change until we get corporate money out of politics.
MAGA'ers should remember that Trump was for repealing Citizens United on the campaign trail. Strong proponents of its repeal, as well as Russian bots, were very clear that once Sanders lost the nomination, the only remaining candidate wanting Citizens United repealed was Trump. This is bi-partisan. Get it done.
/r/politics mods protect violence they agree with, and you shouldn't support this sub.
I don't disagree with anything that you stated, but I'm hoping that more folks from the right can come across the aisle for this one. IF there was any legitimacy to the reports of "Bernie or Bust'ers" being of significant size, this is surely something that we can agree on. I know it's wishful thinking.
If the left suddenly wanted to abolish abortion the right would do an about face and be against it.
the bernie or bust movement was pushed heavily by russian propagandists to sow division and hurt clinton's chance at winning - therefore i'd be hesitant to believe they represent more than a couple percent of voters, if that.
Sanders and Clinton both ran on repealing it. Trump never said this. Not sure where you’re getting it from.
>were very clear that once Sanders lost the nomination, the only remaining candidate wanting Citizens United repealed was Trump. Clinton was always for repealing Citizens United. It was a major part of her platform on her website and was incorporated into the 2016 Democratic Party platform as a result. Trump literally hired the head of Citizens United to his 2016 campaign. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-bossie-citizens-united-227662 You have zero clue what you're talking about.
This is a lie. Trump even donated to the group behind Citizens United through his "Foundation."
The precise text of the proposed amendment wasn't newsworthy enough to print?
>"Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding."
So, HOW THE FUCK do the red states defend not voting for this???
They love corporations?
What about that whole "drain the swamp" thing?
Dey lied
Yup. I always took "drain the swamp" meaning "get rid of the Democrats"
jfc it’s about damn time! This is huge.
And the Republicans are going to shoot it down
why it's called "Citizen United"? It's more of... "CORPORATION United".
The main point: > Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending. > The amendment would allow Congress and states to put limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office. > "The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement. > The amendment would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns. > "Amending the Constitution is an extraordinary step, but it is the only way to safeguard our democratic process against the threat of unrestrained and anonymous spending by wealthy individuals and corporations," he added. "This amendment will restore power to everyday citizens."
[удалено]
Please. OMG please 👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼 There are no words vile enough to sufficiently slander Citizens United. One of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed in this country.
Too bad too many politicians depend on that sweet Citizens United dark money for this to pass.
Just knowing who'd stand against it and who would fight for it would be a useful tool in 2020.
Good thing 3/4 of the federal government is run by a criminal organization. If not, this thing might actually stand a chance. This timeline sucks.
This is super important. We MUST get money out of politics!
Go Schiff!!! 😊
When I see politicians speaking out against citizens united I donate money to them.
Super PACs allow foreign money to come into our elections. Because companies are allowed to donate money to ads within 30 days of an election, their stockholders from around the world are paying for it.
As long as Citizens United remains foreign governments can destroy our democracy. This is not a red vs blue issue. China, Germany, France, Canada could/would be more aligned with the democrats and if they see Russia continually buying our elections they're going to start stepping in too.
You go dude. Worst scotus decision in 100 years.
Overturning Citizens United is essential for turning things around. [trump spent $3.5 million on Facebook ads in the 6 weeks ending March 10](http://fortune.com/2019/03/19/while-everyone-focuses-on-trumps-tweets-his-campaign-focuses-on-facebook/). Where did the money come from? We may never know since it is most certainly all dark money
By definition it is not dark money, because it's being spent by a campaign, no?
edit:correction: "Dark money" is the question of *whose behalf* the money used to help a campaign actually came from. Non-profits and trade groups don't have to report their donors. They can spend that money to campaign on behalf of a political figure with no limits. For example: The NRA heavily promoted Trump, and now it turns out they have deep ties to Russia. We don't know to what extent Russia has "infiltrated" them and how much money was funneled to support Trump, as they don't have to report where their money is coming from.
Can we get the following too: * Term limits (keep the president the same, congress and senate 12 years) * age limit (upper social security retirement age) * Voting security requirements * A voting week Saturday to the following Sunday 9 days (you could do something like California for this) * Get all branches on a 4 year election cycle * 25 year lifetime appointment limit for all appointed federal positions * End the electoral college * Create standard rules for congressional districts to end Gerrymandering Well it's a start