- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Harry Reid's Proposed Amendment
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:32 pm
....Just got struck down in the senate. My liberal friends on Facebook are already reaching for the torches and pitchforks. I can't seem to find a halfway decent (unbiased) article which actually says what's in the damn thing. Anyone care to elaborate?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:33 pm to DrunkerThanThou
What are we talking about?
Eta: I didnt think congress was in session
Eta: I didnt think congress was in session
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:36 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
What are we talking about?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:36 pm to DrunkerThanThou
quote:
DrunkerThanThou
Ahhh, that explains it
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:37 pm to DrunkerThanThou
IIRC, this was some form of change to the First Amendment to limit free speech in response to Citizens United.
This is the amendment that Reid called Republicans "obstructionist" for bringing to a vote because it meant it would have guaranteed floor time before the Senate dismissed for the year.
This is the amendment that Reid called Republicans "obstructionist" for bringing to a vote because it meant it would have guaranteed floor time before the Senate dismissed for the year.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:39 pm to teke184
quote:
IIRC, this was some form of change to the First Amendment to limit free speech in response to Citizens United.
Are you telling me there was an amendment to the 1st up for a vote and it wasnt fricking everywhere?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:40 pm to SundayFunday
It wasn't going to go very far in part because it has to pass the Senate, pass the House, and THEN go to the states for ratification.
And it was DOA in the Senate.
And it was DOA in the Senate.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:41 pm to teke184
Ahh gotcha. Well still. I dont think i heard more than a few words about this. Thought it had more time before a vote.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:44 pm to DrunkerThanThou
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.
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 on 9/12/14 at 2:49 pm to LSUnation78
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 on 9/12/14 at 2:49 pm to DrunkerThanThou
quote:Nuh uh.
DrunkerThanThou
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:50 pm to DrunkerThanThou
The ACLU opposed it on the grounds that it would have effectively dismantled free speech. Why do Democrats hate the ACLU?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:51 pm to teke184
I've wondered this. If they overturned Citizens United, would we default back to McCain-Feingold Act when it comes to campaign finance rules?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:53 pm to teke184
quote:
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.
I agree with you... Just trying to show how dumb the bill was even if you don't think Obama's administration is thuggish.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:55 pm to LSUnation78
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
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:00 pm to Rohan2Reed
The ACLU's take:
LINK
quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes S.J. Res. 19, a proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), that would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance—namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support.
....
Recognizing both the severe harm to political debate through overbroad laws that suppress all
issue advocacy mentioning a candidate for office, and the difficulty in making principled
distinctions between issue and express advocacy under a totality of the circumstances approach,
the courts have rightly rejected measures that allow the government to restrict issue advocacy at all.
....
Rather than “equalizing” the debate and giving voice to the voiceless, laws that allow
criminalization of issue advocacy— which this, on its face, would permit—actually give the
advantage to special interests with significant resources, because they can now call on the law to regulate their policy opponents. By exempting this class of political speech from the scope of
the First Amendment (and potentially other rights), it would provide no protection at all for disfavored minority groups on both the left and right.
LINK
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:13 pm to Rohan2Reed
quote:
a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters.”
wat?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News