Community Blogs
The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. - Bertrand Russell
Big Money in Politics...In or Out?
Today's Supreme Court decision regarding campaign financing and political contributions is an interesting one…because I find myself agreeing with both Justices Kennedy and Stevens.
Justice Kennedy states, ""Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence."
Justice Stevens, dissenting, states, "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case."
Last Summer, I wrote a piece on this…and I include it below for your consideration. Considering the volatility of the political environment right now, perhaps it has a chance of passing.
Let me know what you think...
----------------------------------------
If I have written this correctly, and I doubt it, then the following proposed amendment to the Constitution would have the following effect:
- Citizens could only contribute to their candidate for Representative, their candidates for Senator, and their candidates for President or Vice President (or more precisely, their "Electors").
- Citizens could contribute as much of their own money as they wanted to said candidates.
- Citizens could not contribute as part of an organization, union, PAC or other such group...only individual contributions would be possible.
- Vast, non-individual person sums spent on campaigning would be a thing of the past.
- Politicians could concentrate on legislation, not campaigning for funds.
- Campaigns would be more courtly, less denigrating to all involved, and less insulting to the citizenry.
We elect individual people...it's time they were restricted to individual contributions...and ONLY from those whom they propose to represent.
I present, for your consideration, an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 1
The right of individual citizens of the United States to contribute, financially or otherwise, to any candidate in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall be restricted to those candidates providing direct representation.
Section 2
The right to contribute, financially or otherwise, is restricted to individual citizens. No organization, private or public, may contribute to any candidate, nor may individual citizens act in conjunction for the purpose of contribution.
Section 3
Primary residency is to be considered authoritative in determining a citizen's candidates providing direct representation.
Victor...what will the unions do since they gave Obama and the democrats $63 million for their last campaign? Will the unions finally use the union dues for what it was designed for? Teachers unions especially!
Victor - I like it! Now, if you could just find an elected official that would seriously consider sponsoring it...
Have a great week!
Victor - so now WMC and and Major Corporate Player can pay for their Wisconsin Supreme Court Judges at any time without guilt. Corporate paid lifetime movie hit peices every week!
The Worst decsion made by the stacked rightwing court.
Money = Free Speech
Corporations = Have same rights as a Citizsen
More Money means more free speech and mroe rights!!!
Our new ruleing elite is Kraft Foods and Brawndo is good for plants!!
Brawndo?
This is perhaps the worst decision the SCOTUS has ever made, surpassing even the 2000 election ruling.
Ref...this was sent to me in an email. Not sure the origin but it says it all!
Part1: Campaign Finance: Five justices ruled Thursday that corporations and labor unions can donate directly to political activities. At least someone in Washington is trying to protect free speech. Lawmakers have been strangling constitutionally secured political speech for years. In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that barred corporate political contributions. Twelve years later, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Among other restrictions, it banned for 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election any "electioneering communications" that would be broadcast over television airways or transmitted via cable or satellite. The encroachments were too much for the Roberts Supreme Court, which on Thursday invalidated 5-4 the McCain-Feingold blackout period and overturned the 1990 high court ruling in its Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission decision. In 2008, Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie." The documentary, aimed at derailing Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, was political in nature. The FEC shut down pay-per-view broadcasts of "Hillary," saying that it was a political ad and therefore violated federal election law. Citizens United, an advocacy group, rightly responded by asking the courts to protect its right to free speech.
part 2: The Supreme Court rightly replied by ruling for Citizens United — and for everyone else in the country as well. Free speech cannot survive in a society when it's for me but not for thee. If the government can take away one person's free speech, it can bar free speech for all. Yet that's the society some want. Take note of campaign finance law supporters, who suspend belief that money donated to political activity is speech protected by the Constitution. They ignore both the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court ruling, which confirmed that political donations are speech, and their own instincts that tell them financial contributions are indeed expression. Today they condemn the pro-liberty Citizens United ruling and lament that the Roberts Court is moving hard to the right. The First Amendment is neither right nor left. It protects all sides of every argument — yes, even the more unsavory speech that hurts feelings and offends our sense of decency. Constitutional expression promotes a vibrant, enlightened and open society. The more information we have, the better off we are. The Citizens United ruling is an important decision that moves the country closer to the principles of its founding and the vision of its founders.
Victor and ref33...you guys sure pick the wrong side of debates and what is good for America.
A 57% majority of Americans believe campaign donations are a protected from of free speech, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday on corporate campaign ads. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.
Read more at GALLUP.com.
advertisement
- Happy GroundHog Day!
- It's over.
- Big Money in Politics...In or Out?
- Jon Stewart on Fox News' Brown Coverage...
- Unconstitutional Republicans
- WHAT ARE YOU? Take the Quiz...
- Political Dialogue: R.I.P.
- I Can Admit When I'm Wrong...Bush DOES Have 9/11 Blood on His Hands
- Listen to your Mother
- Christmas Terrorism? Thanks, George W. Bush
Tags: Campaign Finance Reform
Permalink | Email This Blog