Congressman seeks to overturn Citizens United

Let's find out what kind of a corporate shill you really are. Would you support this amendment?

Associated Press, AP

WASHINGTON — A Democratic Minnesota congressman is introducing a constitutional amendment designed to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case that lifted many restrictions on corporate spending in political elections.

Rep. Rick Nolan unveiled the proposal on Monday along with members of Move to Amend, a grassroots coalition that has been seeking support on the local level in communities for the amendment. They say political campaign spending should not be a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling paved the way for a flood of campaign cash from corporations, unions and wealthy interests.

Any effort to amend the U.S. Constitution faces daunting hurdles.

Supporters of the Citizens United decision say it upholds the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130211/US.Campaign.Cash.Amendment/

 

OK

Lying liars and the lies they lie about...to paraphrase a Minnesotan Senator.

Free speech? Puh-leeze. What CU did was allow corporations even more political leverage.

IMO, it's a form of bribery, and is definitely a major hit on the integrity of our political system.

 

It seems that this little straightforward question makes the Righties a bit too uncomfortable to reply. I sort of knew that would happen. It still says a lot about them.

 

Just mention that Obama benefited from it, that outta do it.

"unintended consequences" should be the official slogan of the republican party.

...and thanks for making it just that much easier for Obama to get reelected, you dumb asterisks.

 

Obama’s worst whoppers in past State of the Union addresses

President Obama, like all politicians, typically misleads in his speeches. Two of his worst offenses against the truth have come in his State of the Union addresses.

In fact, they came in the 2010 State of the Union.

Citizens United

Famously, Obama evoked a shake of the head and the words “not true” from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2010 by misrepresenting what the Citizens United rule did. Obama said:

​

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.​

This was wrong in a few ways. First, the “century of law” claim is false. If Obama was referring to anything, it was the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to political campaigns.Citizens United did not touch corporate contributions to campaigns — those are still illegal — but instead the ruling struck down rules about corporations exercising political speech separate from a campaign.

And no, foreign corporations are not allowed now to contribute to campaigns nor to make independent expenditures, so that part was false, too — as Justice Alito quietly noted.

‘We have excluded lobbyists’

In the context of addressing the “deficit of trust,” Obama told an outright falsehood: “we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs.”

This was not true in any sense.

Obama by that point had hired at least 50 lobbyists to policymaking jobs, including four cabinet members. He even hired a Goldman Sachs lobbyist as Treasury chief of staff.

When I asked the White House how Obama could make that claim, they responded:
“As the President said, we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions.”

So, yeah, they had excluded some lobbyists.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama...-state-of-the-union-addresses/article/2521345

 

So you're remaining a corporate lap bitch I see. What a surprise! I'm just shocked.

 

Just reporting the truth. Open your eyes.

 

My amendment would be simple: Congress shall have the power to regulate by law campaign contributions for Congressional and Presidential Elections.

Anything more than that probably has an agenda.

 

You mean Congress will manage to create a regulation without an agenda. Somehow I doubt that.

 

Open yours. Decide for yourself rather than relying on a "Conservative" hack writing in a street corner freebie. Ignoring the fact that the majority lamely tried and failed to justify addressing a question that it wasn't asked to rule on in the first place, I don't think that the issue is as clear cut as either side seems to think. I think it's instructive to read the dissent before reading the ruling itself as the former provides some background on some the the points and precedents and makes the ruling more comprehensible. At least that's the way it worked for me.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

 

Sounds kind of backwards, but hey, whatever works for you. Do you have an opinion you'd like to share?

 

Yeah, sounds backwards because it would be logical to read the dissent, rather than to not read it at all. You're a jackass.