Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 09:47 PM Aug 2012

Obama ENDORSES Bernie Sanders’ Constitutional Amendment to OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED






During a Reddit IAmA chat, President Obama made some big news today by announcing that he supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

During his Reddit chat, Obama touched a topic that very few elected politicians will go near. The president not only discussed the role of money in politics, but he also endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

The president said,




Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and been sponsored in Congress – to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/c60nc6s







A certain Vermont Senator just so happens to have both a constitutional amendment, and a movement behind it to overturn Citizens United.




SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.


Hundreds of thousands of people have signed the petition in support of the constitutional amendment. People who have been paying attention to the effort to overturn Citizens United know exact what the president was referring to.


Obama was correct. The odds of successfully changing the constitution are small, but the amendment gives opponents a chance to discuss Citizens United each time it is brought up and talked about. The Disclose Act is just the first step. Citizens United must be overturned, and President Obama has provided a huge shot in the arm to Bernie Sanders and his movement to stop the conservative billionaires from buying our government.







http://www.politicususa.com/obama-endorses-bernie-sanders-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html


142 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama ENDORSES Bernie Sanders’ Constitutional Amendment to OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED (Original Post) Segami Aug 2012 OP
K&R BumRushDaShow Aug 2012 #1
kick ailsagirl Aug 2012 #2
Next prez will make two supreme court picks.... SugarShack Aug 2012 #84
This is an even bigger reason we need Obama back. bamacrat Aug 2012 #86
Thank you Senator Sanders. Thank you President Obama. sad sally Aug 2012 #3
Big K&R! nt snappyturtle Aug 2012 #4
J'approve! Fire Walk With Me Aug 2012 #5
+1 freshwest Aug 2012 #16
K&R siligut Aug 2012 #6
So under Section 1, Limited Liability Companies have no constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #7
You cannot put a corporation in jail Progressive dog Aug 2012 #21
DemocraticUnderground LLC would lose its fourth amendment protection Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #32
DemocraticUnderground is not a person Scootaloo Aug 2012 #37
So no constitutional protection against the police seizing the list of DU members and their details? Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #62
I agree with you.. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #66
Your position is that nonhuman entities are equal to humans. Scootaloo Aug 2012 #68
So you don't believe that LLC's such as DemocraticUnderground have any constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #69
No, it doesn't. kurtzapril4 Aug 2012 #74
DU & other LLCs have plenty of "rights" already ozsea1 Aug 2012 #105
The Center Point: RC Aug 2012 #89
Was this the case prior to the Citizens United law coming into effect? LanternWaste Aug 2012 #73
Corporations have always had constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #85
But ONLY in the United States do Corporations have the Rights of People. RC Aug 2012 #90
Wrong. Corporations have NOT always had the same rights as persons. Ikonoklast Aug 2012 #94
A law that bans a corporation from publishing a book Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #100
You are advocating for rights without the same responsibilities. Ikonoklast Aug 2012 #103
The CEO and other top officers of Enron were sentenced to prison. Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #104
Ever hear of Rick Scott ?? Hello !!!! ozsea1 Aug 2012 #106
If standing with the ACLU is being "concerned", Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #109
ACLU is a great and honorable organization ozsea1 Aug 2012 #112
BTW, Welcome to DU! Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #116
Rush Limbaugh stands shoulder-to-shoulder with you in your defense of the ACLU. Ikonoklast Aug 2012 #117
They also defended the KKK's right to march. Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #119
K&R for Bernie Sanders and Barak Obama LongTomH Aug 2012 #8
k&r... spanone Aug 2012 #9
Beautiful! MyshkinCommaPrince Aug 2012 #10
if Obama gets a 2nd term, this should be his main focus LSK Aug 2012 #11
Don't say if, say when. Cleita Aug 2012 #18
k&r nt steve2470 Aug 2012 #12
Get thee to the Greatest Page! meow2u3 Aug 2012 #13
Go Bernie flamingdem Aug 2012 #14
K&R Wednesdays Aug 2012 #15
It's good news but I would be more impressed by former-republican Aug 2012 #17
Not every lobbyist is an evil corporate stooge Scootaloo Aug 2012 #36
I'm not against throwing the baby out with the bath water. nt Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #38
I'm Jamaal510, and I approve of this message. Jamaal510 Aug 2012 #19
K & R n/t RoccoR5955 Aug 2012 #20
K&R SunSeeker Aug 2012 #22
It's a great start! Thank you, Cha Aug 2012 #23
excellent! ibegurpard Aug 2012 #24
Huzzuh! sakabatou Aug 2012 #25
This is huge! Smickey Aug 2012 #26
Ah yes! Does me so good to hear this Populist_Prole Aug 2012 #27
Excellent, and a great campaign issue when billionaires are so obviously taking over! reformist2 Aug 2012 #28
Section 3 is beautiful - A TOTAL BAN on corporate money!! reformist2 Aug 2012 #29
I worked for 14 hours today, nursing, so didn't see any news Care Acutely Aug 2012 #30
Ponies for everyone! OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #31
Your concern is noted. longship Aug 2012 #34
Fool me once... OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #49
your concern AND deficit of pony is noted Care Acutely Aug 2012 #55
So the Fourth Amendment is a pony? OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #76
Holy fuck, indeed. nt woo me with science Aug 2012 #123
I hope you get the president that gets everybody a pony. longship Aug 2012 #59
Let's see... OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #71
Please don't put words in my mouth. longship Aug 2012 #78
System Justification theory. OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #83
Well, okay. longship Aug 2012 #99
Obama tama Aug 2012 #118
Theater my friend, unoriginal plot & predictable ending. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #67
Do you support Citizen's United? Ikonoklast Aug 2012 #97
You're presenting a false choice xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #130
After this, therefor because of this; or, as the Latins may have said... LanternWaste Aug 2012 #75
There is a high correlation OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #82
it's not a pony yet Enrique Aug 2012 #79
Yup. It is a future pony, woo me with science Aug 2012 #122
Here's to Hope! defacto7 Aug 2012 #33
Howzabout going to whitehouse.gov and thanking him? eridani Aug 2012 #35
that is great news! liberal_at_heart Aug 2012 #39
Love the Senator Sanders upi402 Aug 2012 #40
I fully support the idea davidpdx Aug 2012 #41
Can we not have five minutes of excitement around here? Chorophyll Aug 2012 #43
Apparently not... SIDURI Aug 2012 #54
Sorry I'm not usually that pesstimistic on here davidpdx Aug 2012 #61
This is huge!!!..Thank You President!!!...(although it does smell of two steps back/one forward) lostnote12 Aug 2012 #42
K&R Chorophyll Aug 2012 #44
Excellent!! Now for the hard part, getting the party to endorse it as a common goal! (except for Dragonfli Aug 2012 #45
Let's not forget KUDOS to Bernie Iwillnevergiveup Aug 2012 #46
Definately. Kudos Mr. President AND Senator Sanders. great white snark Aug 2012 #47
would it really take an amendment? liberal_at_heart Aug 2012 #48
Wow! Maybe I will vote for this guy. If only he could oppose the costly trade deals.... grahamhgreen Aug 2012 #50
K&R patrice Aug 2012 #51
That's my guy. Thank you President Obama. SIDURI Aug 2012 #52
Forward rks306 Aug 2012 #53
kick silvershadow Aug 2012 #56
Make it so Berlum Aug 2012 #57
Uh....no he didn't. Not even close limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #58
Thanks dreamnightwind Aug 2012 #64
Well certainly what he said was a good step. But I don't see where he endorsed the Sanders proposal. limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #65
Nope, that appears to be dreamnightwind Aug 2012 #92
well they just copied and pasted it from politicususa.com so that site made the "error" limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #128
How the hell did I miss that? Smickey Aug 2012 #77
Here's what's wrong with the proposed amendment... Scuba Aug 2012 #60
You'd get my vote. randome Aug 2012 #91
Obama is beginning his second term. The Doctor. Aug 2012 #63
Sweet. nt ZombieHorde Aug 2012 #70
Thank You Mr. President Liberalynn Aug 2012 #72
i'm shocked this isn't from Daily Kos Enrique Aug 2012 #80
Non-profit public corporations not included. Trillo Aug 2012 #81
Enthusiastic K&R BlancheSplanchnik Aug 2012 #87
Awesome. Alduin Aug 2012 #88
Go Go Obama legal rectitude power! a geek named Bob Aug 2012 #93
I want to "take my Country back" - From the Kochs!. . . n/t annabanana Aug 2012 #95
Wow, this thread has really broughten out the concern trolls. Odin2005 Aug 2012 #96
This is a definite win!! Initech Aug 2012 #98
I wish them luck. Truly. MADem Aug 2012 #101
This message was self-deleted by its author 1GirlieGirl Aug 2012 #102
I am so glad. . . h2ebits Aug 2012 #107
I'm cracking open a cold one RIGHT FUGGING NOW Blue Owl Aug 2012 #108
SUPERB! Marje Aug 2012 #110
What a great debate question: Mitt, do you support a constitutional...? RiverStone Aug 2012 #111
"Jim, I don't always agree with the ACLU, but I think they are correct on this issue". (nt) Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #120
Second term theme tama Aug 2012 #113
Well said dreamnightwind Aug 2012 #131
You have the consensus of the 99% tama Aug 2012 #133
Bravo, Mr. President Blecht Aug 2012 #114
Go, Bernie, Go! MadrasT Aug 2012 #115
That is applause worthy. TheKentuckian Aug 2012 #121
This is significant...... Swede Atlanta Aug 2012 #124
A Constitutional amendment will take a long time. We need to make the supreme court overturn it now. Fire Walk With Me Aug 2012 #125
I cannot pass this thread without a REC HereSince1628 Aug 2012 #126
Obama's done a lot of things that piss me off... harmonicon Aug 2012 #127
DU rec..nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #129
How do they know he endorsed the Sanders proposal instead of the one by Senator Udall? limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #132
I see zero reason to think that amendment would have changed the Citizens United decision eallen Aug 2012 #134
"The proposed amendment is a mess" Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #135
So what do you suggest? dreamnightwind Aug 2012 #136
A couple of things we ought to do. eallen Aug 2012 #138
Corporations are already banned from contributing to candidate campaigns or political parties Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #139
Disclosure is not nearly enough dreamnightwind Aug 2012 #141
knr Douglas Carpenter Aug 2012 #137
I'd almost vote for Prez Obama just based on this single issue alone. Zorra Aug 2012 #140
K&R cprise Sep 2012 #142
 

SugarShack

(1,635 posts)
84. Next prez will make two supreme court picks....
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:55 AM
Aug 2012

last year fla had 18 abortion bills...and this year 9!!! And all of the other problems.

We have vouchers now bleeding the school system. They say we are short now...for fire service. Huh?

bamacrat

(3,867 posts)
86. This is an even bigger reason we need Obama back.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 11:13 AM
Aug 2012

I mean he will appoint centrists but that's way better than what we could get with Romney. If we had a truely liberal court imagine the change we would actually experience.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
7. So under Section 1, Limited Liability Companies have no constitutional rights.
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 09:56 PM
Aug 2012

So the offices of DemocraticUndergound LLC could be searched by the police for no reason, and all of the assets of DemocraticUnderground LLC could be confiscated without compensation.

This is a bad amendment.

Progressive dog

(6,845 posts)
21. You cannot put a corporation in jail
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 10:45 PM
Aug 2012

The amendment does not take away the rights of the people who own and run the corporation. It only limits the rights to those people and does not give human rights to a non human entity.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
32. DemocraticUnderground LLC would lose its fourth amendment protection
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:40 PM
Aug 2012

against unreasonable search and seizure.

Also, a law that (for example) shut down all partisan political websites (such as DU) within the 60 day period prior to an election, would be constitutional.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
37. DemocraticUnderground is not a person
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:13 AM
Aug 2012

it does not have the rights of a person - at least, it shouldn't have such rights. Neither DU, nor any other corporation in the nation.

There are many, many things in the world I place more value on than DU.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
62. So no constitutional protection against the police seizing the list of DU members and their details?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:48 AM
Aug 2012

I guess my position on this is in the minority here.

But at least the ACLU agrees with me.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
68. Your position is that nonhuman entities are equal to humans.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:44 AM
Aug 2012

Maybe that's not your intent, but it is the stance you're taking.

For a moment, let's enter your strange and puzzled world, where publicly-provided information accessible to millions for the asking, is actually private. Wait wait... you do understand that aspect of the internet, right? That this isn't private correspondence? No, posting here is like picking your nose in the middle of the crosswalk, if you don't want people to see it, don't do it there.

But alright, we're in your world. Let's say the police, just because they think it'd be funny, "seize the list" of DU members. Mmmkay. And then what? What will they do with this list of private, confidential information? Congratulations, the police, you have a data dump containing not one, not two, but twelve years of god-know-how-many-posters posting nonstop, 24/7/365.25. Complete with code. Woo, that's got to be a total fucking mess.

Alright, let's assume that they're motherfucking Batman and have a magical device that sifts through all that in a matter of minutes (Wikileaks couldn't pull that off, and Assange is about as close to Batman as I've seen - right down to the womanizing, but we're in your world, so the The Police can do this.) They find some naughty post you made in the Gardening Forum, where you secretly while away all the time you don't spend in the knitting group. What then?

Well... Nothing, really. You still have all your constitutional protections as a human being and as a US citizen... Which let us again note, DU is neither. Unless YOU have done something to warrant reasonable suspicion, they can't do a goddamned thing with the information they received from this information dump. I know, some of us like to imagine we're in a dystopian future where th police run around in snazzy red-and-black helmets bellowing "I AM THE LAW!" at everyone, but it's not quote that bad.

Which brings us to the point of the amendment; Removing the ability of corporations to protect their members from investigation and prosecution owing to the fact that somehow, in the 19th century, a Supreme Court Justice ruled that a corporate charter was equal to citizenship with all the rights and privileges thereof.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
69. So you don't believe that LLC's such as DemocraticUnderground have any constitutional rights.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:11 AM
Aug 2012

I, along with the ACLU, beg to differ.

ozsea1

(36 posts)
105. DU & other LLCs have plenty of "rights" already
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:23 PM
Aug 2012

You seem to conveniently ignore the many tax and liability-shielding "rights" that are conferred to LLCs.

All these are derived from statue and tax code. The corporation is a legally created entity. It is not a natural person and is NOT entitled to constitutional protections afforded to persons.

Quit trollin!

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
89. The Center Point:
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:28 PM
Aug 2012
Removing the ability of corporations to protect their members from investigation and prosecution owing to the fact that somehow, in the 19th century, a Supreme Court Justice ruled that a corporate charter was equal to citizenship with all the rights and privileges thereof.


That is it in a nutshell. That is the root of the power of corporations now. Corporations are businesses and as businesses, they can be regulated. With regulation comes 'honesty'. With honesty comes safety. They cannot be regulated properly, if the owners, board of directors, stock holders, etc. are protected from investigation and prosecution.

DU is in much more danger right now of having their member list taken by nefarious entities, then it would be if this Constitutional Amendment becomes the Law of the Land. With this amendment, criminal activity would then be criminal again. The good far, far out weighs the bad.
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
73. Was this the case prior to the Citizens United law coming into effect?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:18 AM
Aug 2012

Was this the case prior to the Citizens United law coming into effect?

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
85. Corporations have always had constitutional rights.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 11:01 AM
Aug 2012

Citizens United affirmed that a corporation has free speech rights in that it cannot be restricted from doing things like publishing a book or making a movie that is critical of an election candidate.

I find it amazing that so many people seem to think that stripping all corporations and LLCs of all of their constitutional rights would be an appropriate response to this. A future Republican congress could pass a law aimed at shutting down websites like DU and DailyKos in the run-up to an election, for example, and this would be fully constitutional.

The only reason I can think of for Sen Sanders to propose something so breathtakingly stupid is that he is fully aware that it has no chance in hell of passing.

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
90. But ONLY in the United States do Corporations have the Rights of People.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:43 PM
Aug 2012

That is the problem, they are not people. Even our Founding Fathers knew of the threats with corporations.
We are seeing it first hand right now. They are buying national elections, funneling their foreign money through Super PACs to buy Romney(figure head) and his real handlers, a Head of State position of the worlds only Nuclear Super Power. If that doesn't scare people, I don't know what will.

Having Constitutional Rights and having the Right of a person are two different things. The passage of Sen Sanders to proposal, will not take away basic Constitutional protections for business or corporations. What it will do is subject them to government control, instead of what we are seeing now of having control of our government.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
94. Wrong. Corporations have NOT always had the same rights as persons.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:51 PM
Aug 2012

Your defense is based on a faulty reading of that amendment, and the ACLU is also wrong on this one...as they have been wrong before.

You assume that the ACLU is the final arbiter of all things constitutional, where they are most definitely nothing more than another advocacy group pushing a point of view.

Someteimes they get it wrong.

But you are consistent in your advocacy here.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
100. A law that bans a corporation from publishing a book
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:24 PM
Aug 2012

that criticizes a candidate in an election should, I believe, be unconstitutional.

But I realize that this position puts me in a minority on DU.

I stand with the ACLU in preferring the full-disclosure route to the book-banning route.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
103. You are advocating for rights without the same responsibilities.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:13 PM
Aug 2012

Get back to me when a CEO gets prison time as the representative of the corporation after it kills someone through willful negligence.

And book-banning is such a lame bullshit ruse to hide behind.

THINGS do not have inalienable RIGHTS. A corporation is a THING.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
104. The CEO and other top officers of Enron were sentenced to prison.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:20 PM
Aug 2012

And the Sanders amendment would indeed make book-banning constitutional.

Everyone here loves the ACLU when they support things like the right to protest against war. Much fewer people are on board, however, when they defend less popular Constitutional rights.

ozsea1

(36 posts)
106. Ever hear of Rick Scott ?? Hello !!!!
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:28 PM
Aug 2012

You pick one execption and want us to believe it proves the "rule", whatever you think it is...

We got it. You're concerned.

NEXT.

ozsea1

(36 posts)
112. ACLU is a great and honorable organization
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 03:54 PM
Aug 2012

But they are not the Gold Standard for what is and is not constitutional, and hiding behind that figleaf is lame as well as revealing.....

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
117. Rush Limbaugh stands shoulder-to-shoulder with you in your defense of the ACLU.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:12 PM
Aug 2012
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-asks-court-protect-confidentiality-rush-limbaughs-medical-records

They were wrong on this one, too. Doctor shopping is a crime and Limbaugh's medical records were evidence of criminal activity done by him directly or on his behalf by others.


Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
119. They also defended the KKK's right to march.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:30 PM
Aug 2012

Despicable, right? I'm siding with a bunch of KKK-lovers! How indefensible is that?

LSK

(36,846 posts)
11. if Obama gets a 2nd term, this should be his main focus
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 10:02 PM
Aug 2012

Serious finance reform would really really change this country and fix a lot of problems.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
18. Don't say if, say when.
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 10:22 PM
Aug 2012

We have to be positive and don't want to give any energy to the negative.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
17. It's good news but I would be more impressed by
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 10:21 PM
Aug 2012

President Obama kicking out every damn lobbyist out of Washington.

That is the corruption of Washington not Pac ads

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
36. Not every lobbyist is an evil corporate stooge
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:08 AM
Aug 2012

There should be definite lobby reform (END the Insider-to-Lobbyist revolving door!) but pretty much anyone and anything you can imagine has a lobby group.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
24. excellent!
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:12 PM
Aug 2012

One more reason to support him enthusiastically despite the disappointments of his first term.

Smickey

(3,090 posts)
26. This is huge!
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:18 PM
Aug 2012

Lets see if it changes Mutts speech tomorrow. He will have to respond, me thinks, especially considering his "corporations are people my friends" bit on the stump. Could be that our guy is trying to throw mutt a curve ball and make him consider changes to what must be a well rehearsed speech.

Care Acutely

(1,370 posts)
30. I worked for 14 hours today, nursing, so didn't see any news
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:32 PM
Aug 2012

So THAT's what my friend meant on FB when she said "The President Reddit today."

LOL.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
49. Fool me once...
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:24 AM
Aug 2012

I remember then Senator/Candidate Obama pledging to support a filibuster of the FISA amendments.

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.

Supporters of today's deal say it doesn't guarantee immunity—it just kicks the issue to a court to decide. But that's deceptive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:

"It gives [Bush's] attorney general the power to decide if cases against telecommunications companies will proceed. The AG only has to certify to the FISA court that the company didn't spy or did so with a permission slip from the president. A note from the president is not a legal defense. Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a 'permission slip' from the president is not court review."5


Instead, he voted to give retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies.

What the fuck?

"It's chess! The Republicans would use it against him! We'll fix it later!"

((Domestic surveillance is an important issue for me. It's why I started studying politics. The vote on the FISA amendments was very significant. Here's the kicker: the amendments were due to sunset, and when they did, FISA would have returned to pre-Bushian status. All that was necessary was to hold up the vote. (Reid could have chosen not to bring it up, but that's another matter.))

Filibustering cloture and doing nothing would have fixed everything, yet Obama chose to break his promise and vote for retroactive immunity, i.e. a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for fucking telecommunication companies.

Not really surprising, actually, when one learns that Obama ($267,711)

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&chamber=S&party=D&cycle=2008&state=&sort=A

and Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, ($50,650) were the largest recipients of campaign contributions from AT&T.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&party=D&chamber=H&type=P&cycle=2008

Birds of a feather, and all that. (Hillary came in second- $112,345.)

Domestic surveillance has increased under Obama. Am I supposed to excuse this because he's a Democrat? Are you that shallow?

(Actually, I appreciate your snark. It makes it easy to pick out the ignorant ones.)

Maybe you're gullible. Maybe you're naive. Maybe you have other reasons for voicing your support for Obama's endorsement.

So Obama endorsed Sanders' amendment. Did he keep it under 140 characters?
 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
76. So the Fourth Amendment is a pony?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:30 AM
Aug 2012

If I don't have anything to hide, I don't need to be concerned?

Ho-lee fuck.

You're new here. Do you have anything substantive to add, or have you reached the depths of your knowledge with ignorant snark?

longship

(40,416 posts)
59. I hope you get the president that gets everybody a pony.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:55 AM
Aug 2012

Such a president doesn't exist. But that doesn't stop people from dreaming of ponies. The dream is rational; the expectation is not.

The reason? Democracy is a messy, messy thing and people generally don't see things the same way.

So the only thing left is to vote for the best we are offered. Every so many years there may be an FDR, a JFK, a Lincoln, etc. but we cannot expect every president to be one of those iconic game changing leaders. It takes a particular confluence of events and possibly genetics to bring such opportunities to bear. Alas, the world, and people, are not perfect.

Again. I note, and dismiss, your concern.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
71. Let's see...
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:31 AM
Aug 2012

A pony for prosecuting the Bush administration for torturing detainees.

A pony for prosecuting the Bush administration for an illegal war of aggression that has cost over 4,400 US lives, 150,000/650,000/1,000,000 (take your pick) Iraqi lives, and $1.2 trillion dollars.

A pony for prosecuting the big banks that got rich by gaming the system and driving blacks, Hispanics, and war veterans into bankruptcy and foreclosure.

A pony for Medicare for All, instead of forcing people to buy shitty healthcare coverage with no price caps.

I'm gonna need a bigger stable.

I note your casual dismissal of my concerns. "Fuck 'em, I got mine!" Right?

To paraphrase Justice Davis, it could well be said that a candidate, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation.

longship

(40,416 posts)
78. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:35 AM
Aug 2012

I didn't say "fuck you". I merely ridiculed your unreasonable expectations given the political system we have.

I don't like it any more than you do. But at least I recognize that one has to work within the system while simultaneously doing ones best to influence change.

I unhesitatingly support Barack Obama because he is the Democratic nominee. To do anything else only supports a candidate who is so horrible that it is unthinkable to do otherwise.

No, I do not think he's perfect. But I am not going sit on my hands waiting for a perfect candidate. That, in my opinion, is a very unrealistic attitude.

I will stand by my original post and your further concern is noted, as is your snarky response.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
83. System Justification theory.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:46 AM
Aug 2012

A Decade of System Justification Theory:
Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious
Bolstering of the Status Quo
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=system+justification+theory&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Good luck with that.

longship

(40,416 posts)
99. Well, okay.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:17 PM
Aug 2012

But I don't see the fact that my wanting people to vote for Obama necessarily eliminates my desire to see a more liberal candidate. If that were so, Obama might lose and then we'd all be in real trouble. And who's to say that that wouldn't drive the Democratic party further to the right.

I don't believe that it would, but I do think a Romney win this time would be extraordinarily bad thing. That is why I have no choice but to fully support Obama. I can still support liberal causes. Doing one does not mean I can't do the other.

Maybe this is something which we're going to have disagree about. That's okay with me.

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
118. Obama
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:22 PM
Aug 2012

Four years ago there was Hopebama phenomenon, especially young people angry and frustrated believing the message of hope and change and voting Obama. None of that enthusiasm now, just party loyalty, tactical votes for lesser evil and holding nose in the booth, and nothing wrong that, per se.

When people eager for change saw they were betrayed (economic team was eye-opener) and OWS started, they saw an opening and took it to the streets and in their hearts. Disillusion about the (party) political system is only a good thing, and strengthening the grass roots movements the only way to put pressure on the political system. Democratic party tried very hard to co-opt (and at the same time violently suffocate) the Occupy movement, but failed. If people want to see Democratic party and generally the political system move even inch in better direction, they need to double up the pressure from grass roots movements and make it even more radical.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
97. Do you support Citizen's United?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:02 PM
Aug 2012

Seems that the potential to overturn or do away with this ruling through judicial or constitutional means has a certain number of members upset here.

We should just do nothing, and hope for the best...right?

 

xxenderwigginxx

(146 posts)
130. You're presenting a false choice
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:16 PM
Aug 2012

Wanting to overturn Citizen's United doesn't mean I have to support this flawed amendment.
I also would prefer our representatives put time and effort into actually overturning Citizens United, not wasting time trying to score points with the base by pushing a constitutional amendment that will not pass. It is pure pandering, and should be insulting to an informed voter. I want action and results.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
75. After this, therefor because of this; or, as the Latins may have said...
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:30 AM
Aug 2012

Yup. After this, therefor because of this; or, as the Latins may have said, post hoc ergor prompter hoc.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
82. There is a high correlation
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:43 AM
Aug 2012

between fantastic promises and approaching elections.

Failure to fulfill these promises is frequent.

Like I said, Fool me once.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
79. it's not a pony yet
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:35 AM
Aug 2012

when Obama gets reelected and doesn't do anything to advance this, then anyone who doesn't like it will be mocked for wanting a pony.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
122. Yup. It is a future pony,
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:41 PM
Aug 2012

an approaching pony, a destined pony, a pony down the line, down the pike, down the road, an eventual pony, a fated pony, a forthcoming pony, an impending pony, a pony in the cards, a pony in the offing, an inevitable pony, a pony just around the corner, a prospective pony, an unfolding pony-to-be.

But, based on history and common sense, this pony-to-be will, ultimately, assume exactly the role you describe.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
35. Howzabout going to whitehouse.gov and thanking him?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:08 AM
Aug 2012

I just did. I'm like most people--I tend to write complaints to Obama and Congress more than thanks. Trying to get a little more balance.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
41. I fully support the idea
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:26 AM
Aug 2012

But we know the Republican obstructionists will stop it.

From Wikipedia:

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once — in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment - has the convention method of ratification been employed.


The first method won't work, that would require 288 votes in the US House and 67 in the US Senate. It would take massive losses by the Republicans in this election and the next one for that to happen.

The second method would require 34 states to call for a convention. That would be the more likely route, but almost as hard because each of those legislatures would have to take up and approve the application. Then 75% or 38 states would have to approve it.

The state I live in would have no problem getting it through. The question is whether we'd be able to find 33 other legislatures to agree.

Chorophyll

(5,179 posts)
43. Can we not have five minutes of excitement around here?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:30 AM
Aug 2012

I'm glad the president is on board. No one thinks everything is going to be all rainbows and unicorns.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
61. Sorry I'm not usually that pesstimistic on here
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:13 AM
Aug 2012

I strongly believe Obama will win, and we will hold in the US Senate and take back the US House (not by a large margin, but enough to have a D as a Speaker of the House again). That still leaves us with gridlock and the Republicans obstructing everything. It just pisses me off.

A constitutional amendments will likely take a full decade. The Disclose Act would be a great starting point if we get back control of both houses of Congress.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
45. Excellent!! Now for the hard part, getting the party to endorse it as a common goal! (except for
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:33 AM
Aug 2012

the blue dogs, no amount of reason will make them any less Republican regardless of what they run as to win office)

Of course, an effort to influence the traitor right wing Democrats may shame at least one or two so I am all for trying.
This is the most important issue of modern politics after all.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
48. would it really take an amendment?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:13 AM
Aug 2012

The Supreme Court ruled the healthcare law constitutional and if the republicans get the Senate back you know repealing it will be the first thing they do. So, maybe what we need to do is concentrate on getting the House back.

rks306

(116 posts)
53. Forward
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:10 AM
Aug 2012

I love Senator Sanders, go President Obama, I think this month I will donate to both campaigns. I'm not a rich man, but every little bit will help. We need a national way to vote also. I think the Card-scan is the proper way to go, leaves paper trail and machines relie on proven technology. Things in the future are not always better than past.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
58. Uh....no he didn't. Not even close
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 03:53 AM
Aug 2012

At least not based on that quote.

President Obama endorsed "the need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process", whatever that means.

Exactly what it says. He thinks we should seriously consider mobilizing a process.

He did not endorse the Sanders proposal particularly, or any of the many other amendment versions that have been proposed.

How am I the first person in the thread to point this out? Do people just read the title? I'm doubting my own reading comprehension skills at this point since all the other people read it different.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
64. Thanks
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:27 AM
Aug 2012

I read the whole thread to see if someone mentioned this. The way you read it is the same way I read it. Let's see if anyone can explain away the obvious.

I think this issue is terribly important. I don't trust the Disclose Act, I've seen it trumpeted by MSM-types who seem to be offering it as a substitute to the fundamental reform we need.

Full public funding of elections, that's where it's at. It's really the only way to get our country back on track.

I'm glad Obama brings up overturning Citizens United, but I don't think he's advocated for this issue with the urgency it deserves.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
65. Well certainly what he said was a good step. But I don't see where he endorsed the Sanders proposal.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:34 AM
Aug 2012

That is all.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
92. Nope, that appears to be
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:48 PM
Aug 2012

a somewhat disingenuous extrapolation by the author of the OP. No mention of the Sanders proposal by Obama. What's funny is I don't see the need to have done that, the OP stands just fine without shoehorning the Sanders proposal into it.

IIRC Obama mentioned the problems with Citizens United in the State of the Union address. I believe he sincerely opposes it but doubt that he'll fight for meaningful reforms or for overturning it.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
128. well they just copied and pasted it from politicususa.com so that site made the "error"
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:32 PM
Aug 2012

I don't know, the president might fight for it or not. There are several different amendments that have been proposed. No indication he endorsed any particular one. This is not a dig at the op or at the president. They are both great citizens I'm sure. But I question that politicususa.com.

Smickey

(3,090 posts)
77. How the hell did I miss that?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:30 AM
Aug 2012

I got excited that's how. You are right hobbler but his intent is clear. Need to do some more checking. This should be all over progressive media today and with any luck corp. media soon. IF this is more than just well timed ladder shaking we should know soon. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
60. Here's what's wrong with the proposed amendment...
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:59 AM
Aug 2012

"Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions..."



According to this, Congress can set the individual contribution limit at, say, $3,000,000,000. Yeah, that'll rein in those Koch brothers.

I much prefer total public funding of elections. Give each registered voter a $50 voucher and that is the TOTAL of all election spending. Voters could give it all to one candidate, split it among several, pool it, toss it, whatever. But that's it.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
91. You'd get my vote.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:46 PM
Aug 2012

So long as no one could turn in more than one voucher. That way, people couldn't sell their vouchers to the highest bidder.

 

The Doctor.

(17,266 posts)
63. Obama is beginning his second term.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:05 AM
Aug 2012

Now that TPTB have followed the course of throwing Rmoney under the bus.

Stay safe Mr. President.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
80. i'm shocked this isn't from Daily Kos
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:36 AM
Aug 2012

usually when I see such false claims about Obama, it comes from a diary at Daily Kos.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
101. I wish them luck. Truly.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:24 PM
Aug 2012

I am old enough to remember a no-brainer fight for a Constitutional Amendment--the "Equal Rights Amendment." This fight predated my birth, even, starting in 1923.

It wasn't at all complicated:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.[1][2]


So much for a no-brainer....some of "We The People" remain more equal than others. The way this amendment has been kicked around for nearly ninety years in one iteration or another shows that we're not "all that" when it comes to basic equality based on gender, never mind race, sexual orientation, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

Gotta be careful when stepping on the prerogatives of fat cats and big shots, I guess. We'll see how easily the corporate influencers roll over and buy off on this one, and how many of their lackeys in the halls of Congress race to bark their tune, like over-eager terriers hearing the postman at the door.

Response to Segami (Original post)

h2ebits

(619 posts)
107. I am so glad. . .
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:57 PM
Aug 2012

that Obama has announced his intentions on this critical issue to our country. We must beat back the oppressors that are trying to destroy us.

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
113. Second term theme
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 03:54 PM
Aug 2012

Obama's language is or course rather weak: Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

What shone the spotlight was and is Occupy! movement, and administration is aware of that spotlight and at least willing to give appearance of being sensitive to public spotlight and readiness to move towards right direction under political pressure from grass roots movements. And in the corrupt political reality second term would in theory give Obama some political room to move in that direction.

People would prefer to hear language like "I will do everything in my power" and powerful emotionally appealing oratory instead of this rather diluted message. What this means is, if real policy changes are wanted, not to give up grass roots political pressure but to turn it up.


dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
131. Well said
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:29 PM
Aug 2012

Once Citizens United survives a couple of election cycles, most politicians in power will be people that got there with Super-PAC money. They won't be our friends in any attempts to reverse this.

The window of opportunity is now. We'll get a little support from D.C., but unfortunately the heavy lift will be left to us. Frankly I doubt we can pull it off, but it's so important, failure is not an option. And if it's such a heavy lift, it needs to be done right, no loopholes, total separation of corporations and elections, not to mention limiting what rich individuals can give. 100% public campaign financing would be the goal.

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
133. You have the consensus of the 99%
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:07 PM
Aug 2012

Keep pushing. What you see in Republican Convention is the 1% digging their hole deeper. Keep pushing them in that hole and bury them. And remember, political decisions are about political will and pressure, so don't get (too ) caught up in legal finesses.

TheKentuckian

(24,783 posts)
121. That is applause worthy.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:41 PM
Aug 2012

I think we ought to be re-defining "corporate personhood" rather than reacting to CU but it is a step in the right direction.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
124. This is significant......
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:15 PM
Aug 2012

it continues to build a stark distinction between the two choices this November, not only for President but for control of both houses of Congress.

One is the party of the 1%, that believes corporations are people too, that believe in privatizing everything possible because every activity, regardless of its purpose, is best achieved for profit, that wants to contract voting rights, contract personal rights such as the right to choose, deny rights such as the right to marry, deny a path for illegal immigrants that have benefitted our economy to citizenship, deny our seniors secure golden years, deny students the means to get a college education, allow our infrastructure to crumble, embrace nut cases having guns, love war and more war if it profits their armaments clients, love the death penalty, etc.

The other is the opposite. While not hostile to the 1%, it believes they have benefitted from our laws, markets, infrastructure, etc. and as such should pay a reasonable amount back to that society in the form of taxes, stands for the 99%, believes certain functions are governmental in nature and should not be privatized (e.g. prisons), believes in the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain, the right for everyone who possesses the legal qualifications the ability to vote, the right for men and women to make the most personal decisions themselves in consultation with their doctor, family and religious advisors, the right for all to marry the person they love, the right to a path to citizenship, the right to healthcare, protection for our seniors in their later years, benefits for our veterans, protection of the environment, protection of our food, air and water, reasonable regulation on industries to protect the physical and other interests of the people, etc.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
126. I cannot pass this thread without a REC
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:41 PM
Aug 2012

I urge the thousands who have not yet rec'd this to do so

REC'ing this thread is the simplest thing we can do to support Obama's decision.

harmonicon

(12,008 posts)
127. Obama's done a lot of things that piss me off...
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:45 PM
Aug 2012

but then he also does things like this, which is exactly what I'd like my president to do but didn't expect.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
132. How do they know he endorsed the Sanders proposal instead of the one by Senator Udall?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:38 PM
Aug 2012

The President didn't say either way.

There are several different amendments that have been proposed by members of Congress and outside groups.

I don't see why this article is jumping to the conclusion that Obama endorsed the Sanders proposal. I blame Jason Easley at politicususa.com for writing a misleading headline. This is really poor quality journalism.

The same guy went back to the well today with another similar article. Dumb.

eallen

(2,949 posts)
134. I see zero reason to think that amendment would have changed the Citizens United decision
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:03 PM
Aug 2012

I find it interesting that the first section of the proposed amendment -- <i>"The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations"</i> -- directly contradicts the second section -- <i>"do not limit the freedom of the press."</i> The press, the media, are mostly not natural persons, but businesses: newspapers, magazines, film distributors, commercial blogs, etc. And that was true when the 1st amendment was framed. Many of the key 1st amendment decisions the Supreme Court has made over the years have commercial interests as the key party. Often, represented by the ACLU. Saying that there is a Constitutional right to a free press, but only for natural persons, means almost nothing. Do y'all really want Congress to be able to censor everything from political books to pornography, when the material is published and distributed by businesses? Really?!

The <i>Citizens United</i> case decided whether law could restrict distribution of a movie. What makes anyone think that the Supreme Court would have decided differently, were this amendment in force, if it paid attention to that Section 2 restriction that the amendment does <i>"not limit the freedom of the press"?</i>

I would be happy to see reasonable lines drawn here. The problem is defining what those are. The proposed amendment is a mess, and because of that, essentially tells the court to "figure something out." Maybe that would work. But it would be better if those proposing amendments gave some thought to <i>why</i> the Supreme Court ruled as it did, and tried to come up with some clear principles for drawing lines, rather than just saying "this," but not really too much of "this." So far, I haven't seen much of that.



Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
135. "The proposed amendment is a mess"
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:14 PM
Aug 2012

is the understatement of this thread.

It is a complete, unmitigated, disastrous, embarrassment. But Sanders doesn't care because he knows that it has no chance in hell of going anywhere. Ratification by three quarters of the states? This abomination would not be ratified even by one state.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
136. So what do you suggest?
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 02:45 AM
Aug 2012

Is there another version of such an amendment that you favir, or do you just shoot them down?

Personally I'm not sure where best to spend my energy on this cause. I spent a weekend at a MoveToAmend "convergence", and came away feeling like they are just using this issue to push their own very wide progressive agenda. They scarcely mentioned the amendmet or their strategy to get it passed through the entire weekend. Though I like their broader agenda, I think we need a non-partisan push to get the whole country behind public campaign financing.

It's in very few people's interests to have corporations and rich people buying air time to catapult their propaganda, we should be able to win broad support if we focus like lasers on this issue. The other battles can be fought separately IMO, or even better, if we fight them after getting public campaign financing, we'll have a chance to actual enact the reforms that have eluded us for so long.

Common Cause is good on this issue. Cenk's WolfPAC is another one. Sanders has this proposal. This is no time for splintered, bickering groups to focus on their own issues, we need focus and direction. Any ideas?

eallen

(2,949 posts)
138. A couple of things we ought to do.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:11 AM
Aug 2012

First, we should have transparency laws. Second, we should have laws banning all corporate donations to the candidates and campaigns themselves.

We have neither at the federal level. Neither are prohibited by Citizens United. On transparency laws, the court didn't just point out that the ruling left the door open to that, but practically invited Congress to walk through it. The Republicans blocked that. Of course.

But don't fool yourself. If we can't pass simple laws that move in the right direction, a Constitutional amendment is out of the question.


Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
139. Corporations are already banned from contributing to candidate campaigns or political parties
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:43 AM
Aug 2012

and Citizens United did not affect that ban.

The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_united#cite_note-Carney2010-4

As for a Constitutional Amendment, something like the following would work:

The prohibition in the First Amendment to this constitution against Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall not apply to speech relating to candidates in Federal elections within the 90 day period prior to such elections.

Arguably the "or of the press" could be removed here, but then I think there's a big loophole opened that a lot of entities would try to become "the press".

Personally I don't like this solution and prefer the route of full disclosure advocated by the ACLU.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
141. Disclosure is not nearly enough
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:57 PM
Aug 2012

There is absolutely no way that disclosure gets the job done.

We live in a nation where people don't have the time, intelligence, or inclination to dig behind every lying ad the corporations put out there. And the ad's funders will have ways of obscuring who they are, probably by creating supposedly non-affiliated organizations that they use to fund the ad. Or some other way that they'll think up later. Count on it.

Disclosure is what's being offered up to get us to accept the status quo, or something too close to it, as the new normal. That road leads to total corporate domination of our political process, and we're close to that already. We won't like that kind of future.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
140. I'd almost vote for Prez Obama just based on this single issue alone.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:08 AM
Aug 2012

Fortunately, the Prez is also a billion times better than Romney as a human being, and on every other issue.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama ENDORSES Bernie San...