28th amendment to regulate and limit campaign spending.

[Nostop it]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_5438771.html

The government regulating campaign spending? Yeah, I don't think so. At least someone gets it.



JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures in-tended to affect elections.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148408191/...mpaign-Finance

[Wells]

Yes please.

[Garnier Fructis]

What democracy is there when my voice can't be heard over the $300,000 donation that guy over there made?

[Endus]

Corporations are not people.

And money is not speech.

It really should be that simple.

[DEATHETERNAL]

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment for me. This is a needless violation of economic liberty.

[Wells]

This is a needless violation of economic liberty.

So you think campaign donations have no corrupting effect?

[Garnier Fructis]

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment for me. This is a needless violation of economic liberty.

Buying elections is not economic liberty, because that's not a personal decision. It affects all of us, and I certainly didn't make this "economic decision."

[obdigore]

Can't watch youtube at work. Did Cruz speak in support of this, and I'd actually have to agree with Cruz on something?

[apepi]

Wolf-Pac Go!

[Endus]

Can't watch youtube at work. Did Cruz speak in support of this, and I'd actually have to agree with Cruz on something?

No.

He opens up claiming that this amendment would "repeal" the First Amendment. Because apparently if big corporations and other rich people can't buy elections, free speech doesn't exist, or something.

Edit: And it gets worse from there;

"This amendment, if adopted, would give Congress absolute authority to regulate the political speech of every single American, with no limitations whatsoever."

I mean, that's insane. There's no reasonable way to get that out of the proposed 28th Amendment. It's completely unrelated and there is no backing for that hyperbolic insanity, whatsoever.

[chrisberb]

Anyone have the text of this amendment? I can't seem to find what it actually is o.0
I find it hard to believe that it is anything similar to what Cruz was just talking about.

*edit: I believe I found it:
http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

This is it, yes?

[obdigore]

No.

He opens up claiming that this amendment would "repeal" the First Amendment. Because apparently if big corporations and other rich people can't buy elections, free speech doesn't exist, or something.

Well color me unsurprised.

I'd like to see the text of the proposed amendment, but the country absolutely needs campaign finance reform.

[Dendrek]

Yes please and thank you.

[Adam Jensen]

No.

He opens up claiming that this amendment would "repeal" the First Amendment. Because apparently if big corporations and other rich people can't buy elections, free speech doesn't exist, or something.

What free speech do I, a $9 an hour ramp agent, have against the CEO of [Insert Megacorporation Herre]?

[obdigore]

What free speech do I, a $9 an hour ramp agent, have against the CEO of [Insert Megacorporation Herre]?

Why you have all the speech you want. Just like the CEO does. Of course the CEO can buy much larger soap boxes than you, that's just because that CEO is better than you, since he has more money.

[Spectral]

So you think campaign donations have no corrupting effect?

The SCOTUS decision on the matter is disgusting. Not just wrong, but outright disgusting. I strongly encourage everyone to read it. Roberts essentially states that not only does Congress not have any power to regulate such, but that they shouldn't even think about it. He goes on to indicate that the only form of corruption that's relevant is if there's an explicit description of what's to be done in exchange for the money. Our Supreme Court Justices are scum.

[Endus]

Well color me unsurprised.

I'd like to see the text of the proposed amendment, but the country absolutely needs campaign finance reform.

It hasn't been laid out yet. It's at the rough-draft, let's-figure-out-the-wording stage, but the idea is to revamp campaign finance to remove the unbalanced amount of influence the wealthy and corporations can have on the campaigns.

[Wells]

The SCOTUS decision on the matter is disgusting. Not just wrong, but outright disgusting. I strongly encourage everyone to read it. Roberts essentially states that not only does Congress not have any power to regulate such, but that they shouldn't even think about it. He goes on to indicate that the only form of corruption that's relevant is if there's an explicit description of what's to be done in exchange for the money. Our Supreme Court Justices are scum.

Rich people gonna rich.

[Nostop it]

Ted Cruz is like, "everyday I'm upholdin', everyday I'm upholdin', everday I'm upholdin' upholdin' up upholdin'..."

This is bad, liberals should be outraged. Don't be as bad as republicans during Bush. Stand for something longer than 8 years.

[obdigore]

It hasn't been laid out yet. It's at the rough-draft, let's-figure-out-the-wording stage, but the idea is to revamp campaign finance to remove the unbalanced amount of influence the wealthy and corporations can have on the campaigns.

Make sure you write 'unions' in there, since you'll get the GOP line that 'unions contribute more to political campaigns than corporations do!!!!!'