Skip to comments.Democrats introduce Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United
Posted on 07/30/2019 1:54:44 PM PDT by tcrlaf
click here to read article
1/3rd of all Democrat spending for 2018 national house and senate campaigns came from just THREE billionaires. Bloomberg, Steyer, and Katzenberg...
does it include provisions restricting union money? yeah - didn’t think so.
The MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, which is owned by Bill Gates. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Rupert Murdock owns the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Ted Turner started CNN. Sheldon Adelson owns the Las Vegas Review Journal, which has the highest daily circulation for any newspaper in Nevada.
If Citizen's United is overturned, you'll see a mad dash of the billionaires to buy up or create the media outlets, which are Constitutionally protected from oversight, and that will allow them to dominate the narrative.
This is uncommonly noble of the ‘Rats to use the Amendment process to make this change.
If only they would limit themselves similarly with overturning the 2A.
Much preferable to take the amendment process to overturn the 2A rather than killing it piecemeal with ten thousand cuts.
Excellent. Let them waste their time with that snipe hunt...
Oh, I don't know. Legalizing abortion and legalizing pervert marriage are much worse that whatever this one was.
“Few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like Citizens United.”
Well Chuck, you might have a point if we were a democracy, but saying we are both a Republic and a democracy in the same sentence makes no sense to me.
...and another point, you seem to think that the Citizens United case is worse for the Republic than the three 1913 decisions that change the course of the Republic. I think not. Income tax, the Federal Reserve and the Seventeenth Amendment were all individually worse for America.
The Rats make it easy. Be against ANYTHING they are for. . . .
At least they are following the Constitutionally prescribed process for changing the Constitution.
Generally they do it through underhanded sleight of hand.
What's that old saw claiming that "even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while"?
At the 50th Anniversary of the Constitution, John Quincy Adams, in his "Jubilee" Address, delivered in New York City in April 1839, thoroughly explained the Framers' choice of republic over that of a democracy.
Today, in 2016, when confronted with a decision between individual freedom and slavery, otherwise known as liberty and tyranny, Americans who prefer freedom must be armed with ideas and principles which are "self-evident" and plain. Otherwise, they cannot fend off the onslaught of the "counterfeit ideas" of the Far Left ideologues.
When America's Founders and Framers of their Constitution wanted to convince ordinary farmers and citizens of the merits of a written "People's" Constitution to limit the powers of those to whom they entrust the powers of government, they published and circulated 85 essays, known as THE FEDERALIST.
It's time for citizens, once again, to examine those strong and clear words of Madison Hamilton, and Jay. They are just as clear for today's audience as they were then. Circulate the following excerpts to your friends. Even the least politically savvy will "get" Madison's meaning, especially in light of the power grab now going on in Washington. After all, THE FEDERALIST was the Framers' authoritative explanation of their Constitution, and directed by the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia in 1825 to be used as the text for its law school in its studies of "the general principles of liberty and the rights of man," and said by Jefferson to "constitute 'the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the U.S., on questions as to its genuine meaning.'":
Ooops. Should have been, “today, in 2019.”
I haven’t kept up with the “Citizens United” issue but I do not have to. If Schumer’s for it I’m against it. Simple.
A good friend, who is both a school librarian and a self-described socialist, once argued with me that Citizen’s United, being a corporation, does not have a First Amendment right to freedom of the press.
I asked her how many of the books in her library were printed on printing presses owned and operated by corporations.
“Because if that’s what you really believe, I will help you burn all of the books in your library which where illegally printed by corporations.”
And that ended that argument.
It’s now “Law of the Land”
Yeah, pot calling the kettle black. However, call me contrarian. I know the arguments that money equals the ability to enable free speech, but I feel money makes some voices more equal than others.
Democrats and Republican accomplices should be given the Nuremberg; treatment for allowing concentration camps to be operating inside the republic.
Reset button needed.
I bet a bunch of other Southern states won't either. They need 3/4.
Here then is the top level description that obviously pissed them off
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. This violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an “electioneering communication” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. The ruling effectively freed labor unions and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Court’s ruling represented “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government.”
The decision remains highly controversial, generating much public discussion and receiving strong support and opposition from various groups. Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented “an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights”. By contrast, President Barack Obama stated that the decision “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington”. The ruling had a major impact on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. Later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), would strike down other campaign finance restrictions.
Democracy this, democracy that...
Repeat a lie often enough...
Another waste of time.
IMHO, FReepers would do well to just ignore any reporting on this. Other items are much more timely, important and worth our attention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.