Disturbing communication from the DCCC

[maggiesfarmer]

The DCCC just sent me an email asking me to go to a link and add my name to a petition advocating for a constitutional amendment, but didn't include the proposed text of the amendment or a link to it.

Really? You want me to join support in changing the constitution and you're not going to tell me what the amendment is that I'm petitioning for!?!?!?!

I don't like the implications of the Citizens United ruling anymore than the average DU'er, but I am also passionate about freedom of speech and couldn't fathom ever supporting a change to the wording or scope of the 1st amendment without first considering what the proposed change is.

This notion of "fire up the masses, get everyone excited, but don't tell them our position" is not the sort leadership I'm looking for. That's the kind of shit I expect out of the republican party. The Democratic Congressional Committee should be ashamed of themselves. One of the recurring talking points here on DU is the importance of an informed electorate -- does our own party see it the same?

maggiesfarmer--

The Koch brothers want to hand pick who represents you in Congress.

Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, they have a chance to do just that. It’s easier than ever for billionaires like them to unload millions of dollars in communities across America in order to buy elections.

If we don't want our democracy forked over to a handful of ultra-wealthy donors, we need to take action:

ADD YOUR NAME: Join the call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and bring transparency back to our elections.

Troy, a Constitutional amendment is a big deal. It’s going to take a herculean effort to make it happen, and that’s why we’re asking you to step up and sign on early. We need 100,000 initial signers this week just to start moving forward.

This is a chance to stand up for what's right and fair. This is a chance to strip the power away from the Koch brothers and give it back to the people.

http://www.dccc.org/Overturn-Citizens-United

Thank you for standing with us,

Democratic Headquarters

I included both links (both go to same address). I also spent a few minutes searching for the DCCC's proposed amendment and failed to locate it. I did find a number of sources that had someone's proposed amendment, sometimes' referencing DCCC comms, but none where the DCCC attached their name to a specific proposal.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Um.... an internet petition will not make it so.

So you can relax. They are using the petition to gauge support for the general premise. Many states and cities have already passed such laws. If you don't support the general premise without specifics, ignore it.

No idea why it's so 'disturbing' to you.

[maggiesfarmer]

3. no, a petition is not an amendment...

Your point that they are just trying to gauge support is likely valid, but what meaning does it have if they raise 50MM signatures that agree to some unspecified change in the constitution?

For example, if the republican party sponsored a poll whose results showed that 65% of Americans support further investigation into Benghazi, the first criticism from the left would be that those people don't understand what they're supporting, couldn't find Libya on a world map and have no clue about the details. Is that the standard we're shooting for -- "just get some supporters, doesn't matter if they understand what they're supporting"?

the two points that really disturb me from this communication:
1. the party I affiliate with is requesting my support for an amendment without telling me what the amendment actually is. The Democratic party would seem to be acting on a policy that keeps the electorate, even their own supporters, uninformed. This is direct contrast to my passionate belief in the importance of an informed electorate.
2. proposals I've seen to address campaign spending include changing the 1st to explicitly give congress permission to abridge speech (opposed to current wording explicitly prohibiting congress from doing such), include placing government imposed limits on some forms of speech (by way of a voucher program!) and include adding text specifying that "money is not speech" and/or specifying that "corporations are not citizens". Almost all proposed amendments I've seen have text giving congress authority to place (unspecified) limits on what can be spent and use vague language around what constitutes political speech. All of those are either frightening or fail to address the issue (I'm confident the Roberts court would've reached the same conclusions on Citizen's United even with those later proposals).

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. -- TJ

[Bluenorthwest]

8. It's not unspecified, it specifically states the intent as overturning Citizen's United

Do you wish to retain Citizen's United? If so, don't sign. If you do, then offer your support for reversing that ruling. That's what is being asked of you. Sounds like you favor Citizen's United, so take no action and Bob's your uncle!

[maggiesfarmer]

9. I think reversing CU is at best a temporary solution.

To be clear: I don't like the impact of the CU ruling. I would like it addressed and know how we plan to address it. However, with the current wording of the 1st amendment, I think any court could, conservative, neutral or liberal, come to the same conclusion.

I don't understand how they are proposing to overturn CU, without severely compromising our 1st amendment rights. For example, I don't believe this is the DCCC's intent, but there are proposals for adding a clause to the 1st specifically giving congress the right to regulate and limit political speech, without defining what makes up political speech. Is that what we really want? Consider the possibility of a GOP controlled house where laws are passed limiting how much we discuss climate change, women's pay discrepancy or water regulations, because congress at the time decides that constitutes political speech.

For our party to tell us that their solution to CU is "overturn it" is eerily similar to the Republican solution to healthcare being "repeal the ACA" -- it begs the question of "do you have anything else?"

I understand that some are so outraged by what is to come from the CU ruling that anything else is seen as good. I understand that some feel in many matters one should trust party leadership without questioning. I don't happen to take those viewpoints, but I respect them -- peace.

[GoneFishin]

2. I agree with the OP. No way would I trust that the language would not morph into something

that just advances corporate interests further at the expense of the average guy.

[thecrow]

4. It's to overturn Citizens United

It's right there after the capitalized words

[maggiesfarmer]

7. <sarcasm> yes, and if the [i]intent[/i] of every law was so concisely captured

in the wording, we'd live in Utopia </sarcasm>

[2naSalit]

5. However...

there is a movement brewing in the Senate to address the issue and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been quite vocal about it for a long time. Now Sen. majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is making some of the same kind of noises and apparently there is a Bill proposed:

For more than thirty years, Sen. Sanders has been a staunch advocate for effective campaign finance reform that reduces the influence of special interests and corporations. To that end, he has introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution, making it clear that the right to vote and the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures belong only to real people, not corporations. The Democracy is for People Amendment (S. J Res 11) would effectively prevent corporations from bankrolling election campaigns. Congress and the States would have specific authority to regulate campaign finances by, for example, limiting donations, requiring disclosure of donors, or creating public-financing systems for campaigns.

Sen. Sanders has also supported other efforts to reform our nation's campaign finance system. He has continuously supported the DISCLOSE Act, which would lower the veil of secrecy over campaign finance and prevent foreign corporations, individuals and governments from interfering in our political system. Ultimately, Sen. Sanders believes the best way to limit special interest and corporate influence over the political process is to transition to public funding of elections, effectively removing outside money from the system entirely.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/campaign-finance