Should then that body of people have the right to cast votes as the body of people, while then the individuals cast votes individually at the same time. The corporation casts it’s (say 2000) votes for their body of people, and then those 2000 votes then vote individually as separate people. I mean if they can contribute as a body…why can’t they vote as a body and as individuals. Makes sense doesn’t it. (SARCASM FILTER OFF)
You said “contributions”.
Issue oriented lobbying and donations to issue oriented SuperPACs are a different issue.
We can limit “contributions” all day long, but when you start restricting the speech of others then there are gong to be problems.
BTW - it is also illegal for SuperPACs to coordinate with individuals or the individuals campaign committee.
Tell the NRA SuperPAC, National Pro-Life Alliance SuperPAC, Planned Parenthood SuperPAC, etc., etc. that they can’t lobby or purchase issue oriented advertising or air time on radio and T.V. you are going to run into the 1st Amendment.
Just say’n.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
1 Like
They already are. Parties and unions.
Unions don’t cast a vote.
Neither do parties in government elections.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Im saying that if a corporation is legally able to give hundreds of thousands of dollars because they are a conglomerate of people represented by the corporation, then those same people are able to donate. Why isn’t it the same with votes?
You’re right I did say contributions, when I meant all of the money they spend.
Lobbying if it means buying candidates is wrong, and that is what’s happening. Candidates are bought and paid for and in the back pockets often of entire industries. Just look at the sugar industry and Florida, THAT is an ugly history with real world consequences that go directly against what voters have voted for over a couple of decades now. Legislators actually ignored and broke their own laws that voters insisted on and they passed reluctantly while taking money from sugar lobbyists at the same time.
I’m aware of the first amendment issues you mention, which is why I haven’t offered a solution or method of enacting those restrictions. I don’t yet have a workable idea, though I haven’t worked on it per se’ either.
An amendment to the constitution may be able to limit the money problem.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
It’s really just individuals.
IMO.
The bill of rights doesn’t say a thing about corporations.
Hmmmmmmmm. I tend not to side with overly left or right organizations and will have to give that one some thought. At first glance is seems they are oversimplifying a complex situation with a partial fix that could probably be easily evaded. Corporations and lobbyists are creative critters.
Is money a form of expression in this case?
No but they pretty much require that their members give donations to the dem party during campaigns.
Allowing corporations to make donations just kind of evened things up. 
If you mean they are required to pay dues the union can do what the want to with union dues as long as they are open about where it goes with membership.
The older I get the more I think serious campaign finance reform is needed but will never be passed.
It seems from any angle to me that outside money to buy races in another state is an affront to The Constitution and a violation of our most basic right of self determination but since there’s nothing expressly preventing it neither the courts nor congress is likely to do anything about it since it would cut off their own campaign revenues.
To a degree, i concur.
However, because the way the SCOTUS has interpreted the 1st, an amendment may be the best way to deal with this.
Although, it would be difficult to pass. Ironically, due to the money that would be spent fighting it.
1 Like
Wrong.
There were laws that were passed, that did address this.
SCOTUS struck them down. Some that stood for 100+ years.
SCOTUS is the problem.
No, the SCOTUS did it’s job and followed The Constitution.
There’s a solution for that, pass a campaign finance reform amendment.
So, the SCOTUS prior to the current crop, did not follow the Constitution?
Historically, SCOTUS has been conservative, and Pro business.
SCOTUs in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s struck child labor laws, saying it was against the constitution. It was not until the 1930’s those changed
I concur an amendment is the best way to rectify it.
I also think this is something people from all ideological sides could get behind.
Although, it would be tough.
