Started By
Message

re: Harry Reid's Proposed Amendment

Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:44 pm to
Posted by LSUnation78
Northshore
Member since Aug 2012
12085 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:44 pm to
My understanding was that the bill laid the groundwork to go after/ban corporations from engaging in political speech.

It was pitched as a bill to end corporations from using their money to influence elections... But its so open ended, that the bill COULD be used to even go after SNL for satirizing of politics.

I'm all for campaign finance reform... but there are ulterior motives at play here. No Dem said shite, when Obama was bringing in millions for his campaign. Not a single one of them cared where it came from.


Essentially, this election cycle... the sentiment of the nation isn't on the Dem's side..... so the obvious thing to do is change laws to try and mitigate their losses in this election cycle.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96443 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:49 pm to
quote:

Essentially, this election cycle... the sentiment of the nation isn't on the Dem's side..... so the obvious thing to do is change laws to try and mitigate their losses in this election cycle.


It goes a little beyond that.

With this administration, they would enforce the law on any corporation supporting the opposition and conveniently look the other way if someone were supporting their side.


Considering the horseshite with selective prosections coming out of the DOJ, I wouldn't put that past them for a second.
Posted by Rohan2Reed
Member since Nov 2003
75674 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:55 pm to
quote:

A majority of the United States Senate has voted to advance a constitutional amendment to restore the ability of Congress and the states to establish campaign fundraising and spending rules with an eye toward preventing billionaires and corporations from buying elections.

“Today was a historic day for campaign finance reform, with more than half of the Senate voting on a constitutional amendment to make it clear that the American people have the right to regulate campaign finance,” declared Senator Tom Udall, the New Mexico Democrat who in June proposed his amendment to address some of the worst results of the Supreme Court’s interventions in with the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decisions, as well as the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that it’s going to take more than a majority to renew democracy.

Fifty-four senators, all Democrats and independents who caucus with the Democrats, voted Thursday for the amendment to clarify in the Constitution that Congress and the states have the authority to do what they did for a century before activist judges began intervening on behalf of wealthy donors and corporations: enact meaningful campaign finance rules and regulations.

But forty-two senators, all Republicans, voted no. As a result, Udall noted, the Republican minority was able to “filibuster this measure and instead choose to support a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters.”


The Nation
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram