Democrats Propose Constitutional Amendment
to Overturn First Amendment Decision
Epoch Times,
by
Chase Smith
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
1/20/2023 12:44:33 PM
Democrats in the House of Representatives have introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United v. FEC decision made in 2010.
The court ruled 5–4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations and overruled an earlier decision that banned corporations from making “electioneering communications.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif). said in a press release he and Democrat colleagues introduced the “Democracy For All Amendment” to “overturn legal precedents that have allowed unrestrained campaign spending and dark money to corrupt American democracy.” He has introduced the constitutional amendment every year since 2013,
Reply 1 - Posted by:
cor-vet 1/20/2023 12:47:35 PM (No. 1383314)
What do dems consider 'dark' money? Any contributions that don't come to them?
26 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
danu 1/20/2023 1:03:20 PM (No. 1383321)
didn't know the demoncrats were aware we had a constitution.
patriots when it comes to exterminating patriotism?
21 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
sw penn 1/20/2023 1:06:04 PM (No. 1383324)
The Amendment banning mail-in ballots is more important...
31 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Nimby 1/20/2023 1:13:46 PM (No. 1383334)
How come they never did this when they were in the majority? Show boating!!
15 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
MissMann 1/20/2023 1:16:37 PM (No. 1383336)
Maybe stop taxing non-person entities and they won't need to find "representation" by buying it. Talk about "taxation without representation"! Businesses can't vote, so how else are they going to have a voice?
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Cardsfan 1/20/2023 1:20:06 PM (No. 1383339)
Propose away! It’s a lot easy to grandstand and propose an amendment, than it will be to get it ratified.
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
stablemoney 1/20/2023 1:21:17 PM (No. 1383341)
I have some questions about the Citizens United decision. FB spends $400 million in 2020 election. Soros spends millions. Our elections are being bought. Something needs to change.
23 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 1/20/2023 1:28:33 PM (No. 1383347)
"Lawmakers on the national, state, and local level can also push to increase transparency in election spending. For example, the DISCLOSE Act, which has been introduced several times in Congress, would strengthen disclosure and disclaimer requirements, enabling voters to know who is trying to influence their votes. Congress could also pass stricter rules to prevent super PACs and other outside groups from coordinating directly with campaigns and political parties." * * * *
"Fixing the U.S. elections system will also require fixing the FEC.
Long dysfunctional thanks to partisan gridlock, the FEC is out of touch with today’s election landscape and has failed to update campaign finance safeguards to reflect current challenges. For example, FEC rules do not even include the term “super PAC,” and it has declined to find violations or even open an investigation in high-profile allegations of coordination. The agency’s failure to enforce federal disclosure laws helped allow dark money to pour into U.S. federal elections since 2010."
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 1/20/2023 2:11:38 PM (No. 1383384)
Funny how the left wants to restrict corporate spending but uses very artful language to ensure that uncontrolled and unregulated union spending is preserved.
something needs to be done about campaign spending but this is not it. Presidential candidates spend over 1 billion dollars on their campaigns, for a job that pays $400k. Much of that money is untraceable. One must ask, why would a private businessman spend hundreds of millions every 4 years to prop up a supposedly independent official? Anyone but a leftist knows the answer to that question, and it is not because those mystery megadonors are selfless patriots supporting democracy.
Trump is the only one so far who was actually honest. In 2016 when asked about his past contributions to dem politicians (in an attempt to poison the waters with his base) he was very candid. His reply was simple: " I'm a businessman, I knew what I was buying." That was the day I went from a tepid supporter to full on "Trumptard". (aren't the lefts grade school name calling just so cute?).
7 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
paral04 1/20/2023 2:25:03 PM (No. 1383393)
They need to focus on how we are going to pay our bills and leave the Constitution alone.
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Californian 1/20/2023 2:56:42 PM (No. 1383412)
Broken clocks are still right twice a day.
Citizens United was a *terrible* decision, in effect making corporations (and other faceless blobs of people) into super citizens with more power and rights than real people.
I hate to say it but i actually agree with Hillary on this one. CU is one of the keys to our elections and government being bought by outsiders and non-citizens, be it corporations, unions or foreign powers. It must be over turned.
There are many other things that -also- need to happen but this is definitely one of them.
I don't care that Schiff or Hilary or any other piece of garbage presents a fix. A fix is needed no matter the source.
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
whyyeseyec 1/20/2023 3:08:58 PM (No. 1383419)
@#11 - If Citizens United was a *terrible* decision - is it also terrible for labor unions to buy influence with politicians? Also, the CU decision is one of free speech. It's a 1st Amendment issue. Either you believe in the Bill of Rights or you don't.
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
smokincol 1/20/2023 3:37:57 PM (No. 1383427)
and Mitch McConnell said: u,huh, that's right
0 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
bighambone 1/20/2023 4:14:35 PM (No. 1383445)
What they should be doing in DC is coming up with a constitutional amendment to the effect that aliens who unlawfully enter the USA by way of the borderline, or who overstay temporary visas and join the illegal alien population, are considered to be permanently barred from ever becoming US citizens. If that were to occur and illegal aliens could never attain US voting rights the leftist, progressive, an socialist Democrat support for future mass uncontrolled illegal immigration would drop like a lead balloon.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Californian 1/20/2023 4:34:38 PM (No. 1383458)
12, yes I am a firm believer in the 1st amendment. For people.
Not for corporations or unions or Super PACs or whatever.
People. Individual human beings have rights. They have been superseded by non-human organizations relying on the terrible CU ruling.
Killing citizens United will -restore- some power to real human beings by taking it away from elite, establishment controlled organizations.
What is it about corporations, unions and SuperPACs having a louder voice than real individual citizens you find to be so pro-freedom?
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Rich323 1/20/2023 4:45:36 PM (No. 1383466)
I propose a constitutional amendment to outlaw Democrats, Marxists and Communists!
2 people like this.
It's interesting that the Dems are pushing this but fight like rabid animals when it comes to making any changes to insure election integrity.
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 1/20/2023 6:33:50 PM (No. 1383525)
Interesting how the Democrats have a desire to change the First Amendment to suit their desire of what they want considered as speech.
I would prefer an amendment to remove the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18, and was ratified July 1 1971.
The rationale was 18, 19 and 20 year olds were being forced to fight in Vietnam, but didn't have the right to vote.
Well, now we have an all volunteer military, and it's very well known that most brains aren't fully developed until roughly 24. We've also determined that "little Johnny" can remain on his parents' health insurance until 26.
We've also since raised the age to buy cigarettes to 21.
It would seem most life decisions are met at 21 and over, thus, the old rationale of letting them vote if their going to be forced to fight, is no longer valid.
Heck, I'd be okay with increasing the age to enter military service until 21 too, or allow only those 18, 19 and 20 to vote if they are active military.
4 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
udanja99 1/20/2023 6:44:09 PM (No. 1383533)
Good luck with that! I hear that the Equal Rights Amendment is still floating around out there. It needs some company.
0 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Faithfully 1/20/2023 7:42:15 PM (No. 1383569)
Shine up your resumes, kids.
0 people like this.
Not a chance they can get enough states to pull a fast one like this. Too many people in those states are far too angry at democrats right now.
You nailed it #1
1 person likes this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
chance_232 1/20/2023 9:59:29 PM (No. 1383644)
RE#15
I respectfully disagree. Let's take gun manufacturers, oil producers or coal mining companies as an example. Democrats are determined to outlaw weapons, oil and coal. Should the companies not have a say in the electoral process? Sure I have a right to defend them, but who listens too me? I can't afford to run ads on TV and the radio.
Sooooo 1000 likeminded people get together to finance an ad that may change some minds. But because we are a "group" or a PAC, we wouldn't be allowed to run the ad.
What I have a problem with are ads that are factually incorrect, distorts the facts, takes statements or facts out of context, lies of omission, intentionally misleading, ad hominem attacks etc etc.
I personally want to hear all the facts, without embellishment, in context, without burying mitigating factors by both sides. I want the truth, the whole story, no matter how uncomfortable that may or may not be.
2 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
DVC 1/20/2023 11:32:39 PM (No. 1383670)
Clearly, these idiots have no clue what it takes to ratify a constitutional amendment.
NOT going to be ratified...in the extremely unlikely event that it passed Congress.
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 1/21/2023 1:30:30 AM (No. 1383683)
I wonder what the Democrats' pet name for this Amendment will be. Not the politspeak they plan on. I'm thinking more along the lines of What th' heck.
0 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
MickTurn 1/21/2023 10:43:58 AM (No. 1383993)
Cold day in Hades this will get any traction.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)