Bipartisan Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Introduced

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T18:25:30.021Z

I’m not saying I disagree with your view here - but that will never happen.

TommyLucchese · 2019-01-05T18:51:27.821Z

Even Republicans are starting to realize that Citizens United has changed the status quo from special interests renting politicians to outright owning them. There’s no choice but to do it now.

TommyLucchese · 2019-01-05T18:54:12.980Z

WuWei:

I read the CU decision yesterday. I don’t think any one else here has.

I have. Perhaps you could explain to me why I as an American citizen was not a beneficiary of this ruling but corporations and nonprofits and PACs were. I’m still covered by the McCain-Feingold law.

In fact, they specifically said they would revisit it to apply to actual people instead of our corporate overlords and it’s been almost seven years aaaaand

WuWei · 2019-01-05T19:06:14.218Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

I have.

What is your objection in light of the ACLU’s support?

Phaedrus · 2019-01-05T19:31:41.676Z

WuWei:

Phaedrus:

Which side supports Citizens United?

The ACLU for starters.

Yes they do, and I disagree with them. BTW, you wouldn’t think so, would you? That a supposedly leftist organization would support a cause so beloved by so many on the right. I guess thats because they follw their principles, even into hostile territory.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T19:34:37.685Z

My objection with Citizen’s United is based on how it defines “corruption”.

Under Buckley v. Valeo, the foundational case for campaign finance law, the court determined that restrictions on contributions to campaigns, under the First Amendment, must be subject to intermediate scrutiny - the government must have a compelling interest, and the means must be closely drawn as to avoid unnecessary abridgment of rights.

The government’s interest in regulating contributions to campaigns, in Buckley, was to prevent corruption, or the appearance thereof. Buckley defined corruption broadly.

Citizen’s United is based entirely on a redefinition of “corruption” - defining corruption exclusively as a quid pro quo transaction, or the appearance of one.

By drawing that line, it allowed the court to rule that independent expenditure campaigns paid for by corporations or unions do not give rise to corruption - since they’re not “coordinated” with the candidate or campaign, and therefore can not give rise to a quid pro quo transaction.

I would argue that corruption is not limited to explicit “I’ll give you money if you do this” transactions, and that the government does have a compelling interest in preventing more subtle corruption.

WuWei · 2019-01-05T19:56:33.530Z

Phaedrus:

Yes they do, and I disagree with them. BTW, you wouldn’t think so, would you? That a supposedly leftist organization would support a cause so beloved by so many on the right. I guess thats because they follw their principles, even into hostile territory.

I don’t think the ACLU is a leftist organization.

WuWei · 2019-01-05T19:57:17.841Z

Fair argument.

What did the previous law say that changed with CU?

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T20:01:21.881Z

I’m not sure what you mean.

CU overturned parts of at least two laws - McCain-Feingold and FECA.

WuWei · 2019-01-05T20:05:40.983Z

What restrictions on corporations?

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T20:14:31.212Z

Under Mccain-Feingold, corporations and unions were not allowed to fund any “electioneering communications” from their general funds during a time period (60 days for the general, and 30 for the primary) prior to election day. “Electioneering communications” were essentially defined as communications that identified a candidate by name.

Under the Citizen’s United decision, the court ruled that the law, as applied to “independent expenditure” campaigns made by corporations or unions, was an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment, since there was no compelling government interest in limiting IE spending, since they (as defined) should not lead to explicit quid pro quo corruption.

Phaedrus · 2019-01-05T20:25:00.676Z

Snow96:

Here is what I would like to see in the amendment:

US citizens only can contriubte to candidates, and ONLY from those in the area they will represent (house members ONLY from their district, senators ONLY from their state).

Any entity (pac, political party, business ect) can do issue oriented advertising only, and may not use the likeness or name of any political candidate or elected official.

No party affiliation on general election ballot, those running for the office in a random order.

Then and only then would you know if the person is representing the people, and if the people know anything about the candidate.

I agree with much of what you propose. But “issue-oriented advertising” has been gamed to the point that it is indistinguishable from candidate advertising.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T20:33:06.716Z

Phaedrus:

I agree with much of what you propose. But “issue-oriented advertising” has been gamed to the point that it is indistinguishable from candidate advertising.

If you define “issue advocacy” as McCain-Feingold (and Snow, in his post) did - that no mention of a recognized candidate for office is allowed - it wouldn’t be an issue.

DougBH · 2019-01-05T20:36:07.046Z

ComfortablyNumb:

What would be applied to search engines or social media sites? This seems like a random sentence generator.

Perhaps “it” refers to the Constitutional amendment which is the subject of this thread and to which his post was made in reference?
This (meaning comprehension) shouldn’t be that hard.

Snow96 · 2019-01-05T20:37:04.906Z

It would make a difference if they just said vote for candidates who will keep roe v wade.

Yet they can’t say or show who the candidate was/is on either side of the issue.

Then when you get to the ballot, all you have is a list of names. Well by golly it’s up to the VOTER to know the candidates and what they stand for from their own advertising and that of their opponant.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T20:37:29.798Z

DougBH:

Perhaps “it” refers to the Constitutional amendment which is the subject of this thread and to which his post was made in reference?
This (meaning comprehension) shouldn’t be that hard.

The Constitutional amendment that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with social media or search engines. It’s about campaign finance law.

DougBH · 2019-01-05T20:38:30.018Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

DougBH:

Perhaps “it” refers to the Constitutional amendment which is the subject of this thread and to which his post was made in reference?
This (meaning comprehension) shouldn’t be that hard.

The Constitutional amendment that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with social media or search engines. It’s about campaign finance law.

Is Google not a company?

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T20:39:17.768Z

DougBH:

Is Google not a company?

Yes, Google is a company.

And…?

DougBH · 2019-01-05T20:40:22.785Z

The Amendment applies to companies.
Google is a company.
Therefore…

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-01-05T20:43:42.133Z

So you’re asking if the amendment would prevent search engines and social media companies from directly funding independent expenditure campaigns?

Then the answer is yes.

But I have a feeling that’s not what Smyrna was asking.