I have.
As for this amendment, Iâd have to read the full text of it before I have an opinion on it. The âFAQâ failed to make clear exactly what this amendment would do - I agree with overturning the ruling that defines corruption only as a proven quid pro quo - but it also says that the amendment would overturn Buckley, which is the current backbone of campaign finance law. How it is overturned- or which sections of the decision would be overturned is an important question here
Iâm not saying I disagree with your view here - but that will never happen.
Even Republicans are starting to realize that Citizens United has changed the status quo from special interests renting politicians to outright owning them. Thereâs no choice but to do it now.
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. Iâm 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 itâs been almost seven years aaaaand
1 Like
What is your objection in light of the ACLUâs support?
Yes they do, and I disagree with them. BTW, you wouldnât 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.
My objection with Citizenâs United is based on how it defines âcorruptionâ.
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 governmentâs interest in regulating contributions to campaigns, in Buckley, was to prevent corruption, or the appearance thereof. Buckley defined corruption broadly.
Citizenâs United is based entirely on a redefinition of âcorruptionâ - 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 theyâre not âcoordinatedâ 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 âIâll give you money if you do thisâ transactions, and that the government does have a compelling interest in preventing more subtle corruption.
2 Likes
I donât think the ACLU is a leftist organization.
Fair argument.
What did the previous law say that changed with CU?
Iâm not sure what you mean.
CU overturned parts of at least two laws - McCain-Feingold and FECA.
What restrictions on corporations?
Under Mccain-Feingold, corporations and unions were not allowed to fund any âelectioneering communicationsâ from their general funds during a time period (60 days for the general, and 30 for the primary) prior to election day. âElectioneering communicationsâ were essentially defined as communications that identified a candidate by name.
Under the Citizenâs United decision, the court ruled that the law, as applied to âindependent expenditureâ 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.
I agree with much of what you propose. But âissue-oriented advertisingâ has been gamed to the point that it is indistinguishable from candidate advertising.
If you define âissue advocacyâ as McCain-Feingold (and Snow, in his post) did - that no mention of a recognized candidate for office is allowed - it wouldnât be an issue.
Perhaps âitâ refers to the Constitutional amendment which is the subject of this thread and to which his post was made in reference?
This (meaning comprehension) shouldnât be that hard.
It would make a difference if they just said vote for candidates who will keep roe v wade.
Yet they canât 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 itâs up to the VOTER to know the candidates and what they stand for from their own advertising and that of their opponant.
The Constitutional amendment that is the subject of this thread has nothing to do with social media or search engines. Itâs about campaign finance law.
Is Google not a company?
Yes, Google is a company.
And�
