Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

It doesn't have a snappy nickname yet*, but an amendment has just been proposed that would open the way to reverse Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.

The amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), doesn't directly address the justices' legal finding that corporations have a right to free speech that was curtailed by election law. Instead, it would add to the Constitution language that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.

The amendment would effectively reverse two landmark Supreme Court decisions -- the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment_n_1069596.html

I usually scoff at amendments because they are usually just a politician's way of evading dealing with a controversial issue. Somebody burns a flag and Politician X comes out in support of a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, getting him on record as supporting it while allowing him to do nothing at all.

Reason two for objecting to most amendments is that amendments are all too often attempts to enshrine a particular policy agenda in the Constitution. Prohibition anyone? The Constitution is supposed to be a blueprint for how we govern ourselves, the rules of the game, not which policies a temporary majority is able to shove down everyone's throat.

So I support this attempt to add language that would allow Congress and the states to regulate campaign financing without specifying how they do it. It's the right approach to addressing an important issue.

I doubt this current Congress will pass it, but letters to your rep and senators wouldn't hurt.

Review of the process:
1. Each House of Congress must pass the amendment by 2/3's majority.
2. Congress recently has been putting a 7-year limit on ratifying amendments.
3.The president may express an opinion, but has NO vote in the process.
4. 3/4's of the states...38...must ratify by simple majority.

*May I propose B-Slapping the Supremes Amendment?

[Kuros]

The amendment process is a wonderful thing; even when it overrules a decision the Supreme Court rightly decided. The Court was right to ignore the wide-reaching implications of its decision, and instead look at the immediate impact of its decision: suppressing political speech. Nevertheless, the court does not decide policy. On the contrary, when the court plays politics, it pollutes itself and destroys democracy.

This amendment is a necessary and welcome one. We need to enshrine public financing of elections into the very Constitution itself. Special interests have a right to free speech, up until they begin to subvert the system itself. They are doing just that, and it is up to us to stop them.

[Ya-ta Boy]

My fear is that the reps who introduced it will now sit back and say they've done all they are expected to do. They, and activist citizens need to get organized in each state and begin to push, and push as loud and hard as they can.

This proposed amendment gets at the heart of our political problem. (It doesn't solve everything, but getting this amendment through would go a looong way in addressing the central problem.) It is also something the OWS crowd and the Tea Party crowd might be able to come to an agreement on.

The trick, it seems to me, is how to get the attention of the media (I was hoping Maddow would glom onto it, but alas...) as well as activist citizens groups. I think the country is in the mood for something like this.

Strike while the iron is hot...but how?

[Kuros]

[comm]

I can get behind giving the States explicit power to regulate political financing. However, I'm not sure what kind of rules they would make and enforce. For example:
Post fliers around town promoting the candidate?
Buy a newspaper ad talking up my candidate?
Buy a radio or TV ad talking up my candidate?
Canvas neighborhoods for support?
Collect money from others to do any of the above?
Pay someone else to do any of the above?

I like the concept, but I don't understand the States' implementation.

[Ineverlie&I'malwaysri]

Yat, it looks like you'll have to change your mind again. I agree with reversing this.

(See? You can't be wrong all the time )

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]