• Corruption prevails in the US senate
    16 replies, posted
[QUOTE]On Thursday afternoon, a proposal to amend the US Constitution to allow tougher campaign finance and election spending restrictions was blocked in the Senate, in a party-line vote. 54 Democrats voted to advance the measure — another, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), would have done so but wasn't present. However, every single Republican voted against it, and it fell to a filibuster. Unlike with other bills that have majority support, a filibuster wasn't the primary obstacle here. A proposed constitutional amendment has to win 67 votes to be passed by the Senate — so, assuming all Democrats were present, the amendment would still have been 12 votes short overall. The amendment would have reversed not just Citizens United, but decades of Supreme Court holdings on political spending, going back to the 1970s. Supporters argued that such a measure is necessary to help reduce the unprecedented amounts of money being spent on elections, but opponents maintained it would hurt free speech and political participation. You can read Vox's full explainer on what the amendment would do here.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.vox.com/2014/9/11/6136767/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment-fails-senate[/url]
With the Citizens United case and its outcome, this should come as no surprise honestly The CU case is an absolute travesty of democracy
Trying to amend the Constitution is practically impossible, they need to look into other ways.
One of the most poisonous legacies of the Cold War was a paranoid determination amongst American Conservatives to avoid anything even resembling limits on the unrestricted movement of capital. This is the direct result. I hope for the sake of the American people that initiatives like Wolf-Pac eventually enjoy success, but given my disillusionment with Western Democracy I don't hold out much hope.
"opponents maintained it would hurt free speech" I fail to see how campaign regulations would "hurt free speech." Unless free speech is defined as, "the act of receiving and spending large sums of money for personal gain under the guise of political campaigning." If anything, this would help free speech as you wouldn't be able to win an election just by throwing enough money to overshadow the other candidates with ads and better marketing. This sort of measure would give every politician an equal playing field, it would minimize corruption and allow less wealthy candidates to run for offices. If anyone can properly explain their position to me, that'd be great.
[QUOTE=draugur;45955735]"opponents maintained it would hurt free speech" I fail to see how campaign regulations would "hurt free speech." Unless free speech is defined as, "the act of receiving and spending large sums of money for personal gain under the guise of political campaigning." If anything, this would help free speech as you wouldn't be able to win an election just by throwing enough money to overshadow the other candidates with ads and better marketing. This sort of measure would give every politician an equal playing field, it would minimize corruption and allow less wealthy candidates to run for offices. If anyone can properly explain their position to me, that'd be great.[/QUOTE] Their position - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[QUOTE=SkolVikings94;45955748]Their position - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/QUOTE] Political speech is the most protected type of free speech. It will be next to impossible to get money out of politics
I suggest that anyone living in America who is concerned about these things look up the Wolf-Pac initiative. I don't quite understand how they plan to do what it but their goal is to change the constitution to "get money out of politics". If I were American I'd certainly consider looking into it.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45955793]I suggest that anyone living in America who is concerned about these things look up the Wolf-Pac initiative. I don't quite understand how they plan to do what it but their goal is to change the constitution to "get money out of politics". If I were American I'd certainly consider looking into it.[/QUOTE] Their idea among others IIRC is to assemble a constitutional convention to override the federal goverment
[QUOTE]54 Democrats voted to advance the measure — another, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), would have done so but wasn't present. However, every single Republican voted against it[/QUOTE] Can we bring up how Democrats are just as bad as Republicans because now I submit is the time to bring that up.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45955986]Can we bring up how Democrats are just as bad as Republicans because now I submit is the time to bring that up.[/QUOTE] "54 Democrats voted to advance the measure" The measure - "a proposal to amend the US Constitution to allow tougher campaign finance and election spending restriction" ??????
p sure that's a satirical jab at the "both parties are two sides of the same coin" people.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;45956095]p sure that's a satirical jab at the "both parties are two sides of the same coin" people.[/QUOTE] oh you're right I think. it's hard to convey tone through typing..
This is me being surprised:
Money. Money. Moneeeeeeeyaaah
[QUOTE=MR-X;45956235]Money. Money. Moneeeeeeeyaaah[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds]Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash[/url]
[QUOTE=SkolVikings94;45956034]"54 Democrats voted to advance the measure" The measure - "a proposal to amend the US Constitution to allow tougher campaign finance and election spending restriction" ??????[/QUOTE] [quote]54 Democrats voted to advance the measure [/quote] There's only 53 but there are 2 independents, so if you want to say they're both democrats then one democrat voted no, at least by Vox's math which seems to be no better than Fox's.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.