It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Senator supports an Ammendment to end Corporate Campaign financing, does yours?

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I just received a message back from my senator months after writing her. I am glad she supports this, though I wonder if she thinks it has any real chance of being enacted? Here is what she had to say about corporate election buying:

Dear Mr. ------:



Thank you for writing to me regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which changed aggregate campaign contribution limits. I appreciate you writing me about this troubling decision.



As you know, on April 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. In a 5-4 decision the court eliminated the aggregate campaign contribution limits for individual donors giving to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees. Their decision followed the equally troubling ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, which struck down election-related spending limits on corporations that were a key part of the 2002 "McCain-Feingold" Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Both decisions were a step backward for our democracy that could allow corporations and a limited few to have an outsize effect on elections.



This is why I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J.Res. 19, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution clarifying that Congress has the authority to pass laws that regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for federal campaigns, and the states have authority to regulate and limit money in state campaigns. S.J.Res.19 intends to advance the fundamental principles of equality and to protect the integrity of the electoral process in our democracy by reestablishing Congress's ability to put sensible limits on spending. The procedure to amend the U.S. Constitution is laid out in Article V and requires two-thirds of each the House and Senate to support the change and for three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Only then would the U.S. Constitution be amended.



My own 1992 Senate campaign, which drew its strength from well-organized grassroots Washingtonians, may not have been successful in the face of today's corporate funding to influence elections. I strongly believe that American families and individual citizens should have equal opportunity, and protection, to have their voices heard. Please rest assured that I share your concern and will work with my Senate colleagues to strengthen and improve our campaign finance laws. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate please feel free to visit my website at www.murray.senate.gov...

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I don't know if anyone in my state wants to do the same, but if they do and actually want to end corporate campaign financing they should just go right to revoking corporate personhood, which is why they supposedly have the right to support political campaigns anyway.

Solve the whole problem.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Lets see, I am in Florida..so gonna go with a almost definitely not. Pretty sure our current officials wants to sell the entire state to big oil and Walmart flat out.

Floridamart..now fuel injected



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Something seems a little fishy to me. She wants to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to limit campaign contributions. This in response to the Supreme Court rulings that essentially say that corporations are people and money is free speech, so unlimited corporate donations are considered "free speech."

It seems to me that Congress is never really shy about limiting free speech, or any other right, Constitution or no. If Congress really wanted to limit campaign contributions, they would just pass a law. I'm sure some group of lawyers could word it in such a way that it would comply with the recent Supreme Court rulings. So why would Congress feel they have to change the Constitution to pass a law? Couldn't they just fall back on the old standbys Interstate Commerce or National Security? Or they could get real creative: Establish a "Campaign Contribution Free Speech Zone" where Congressmen must pick up their campaign contributions in person in full view of news cameras. That would get good ratings.

I would really need to read the changes she proposes to the Constitution before I could have an opinion on it. But just off hand, I'm a little suspicious. If the legislation only affects campaign contributions, that's fine with me. But does it have any broader implications on free speech?

As far as I'm concerned, the Constitution and related amendments are there to protect the rights of the people. Amendments that limit the rights of the people, like Prohibition for instance, don't belong.

EDIT TO ADD:

After reading S.J.Res.19 online, I don't see anything hinky in it so far, although it seems a little sparse compared to legislation usually proposed. For one thing, it mentions limiting contributions and the way they are spent, but it doesn't mention that these limitations must apply equally. For instance, I don't see anything that would prevent a state legislature from limiting Candidate A to, say, $1 million while limiting Candidate B to $10 million.
edit on 4-5-2014 by VictorVonDoom because: Read the Bill, sorry Ms. Pelosi.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Does this include unions and superpacs???



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

So, is your senator also going to refuse all union contributions and contributions from all campaign PACS, too? Those are, after all, corporations.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: CB328

Does this include unions and superpacs???



D'oh, beat me to it.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Both of my Senators support free speech.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
That's pretty funny, I see the same thing here in the same state.

Florida has really nice weather for most of the year and that is the ONLY reason I am here at all.

a reply to: SaturnFX



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Corporate "personhood" is the problem.

As I said before, revoke personhood and the problem is solved.

Corporate personhood is said to be a simple clerical error anyway and should not be at all.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Corporate "personhood" is the problem.

As I said before, revoke personhood and the problem is solved.

Corporate personhood is said to be a simple clerical error anyway and should not be at all.





And I say again - Is your senator also ready to deny union "personhood" and super PAC "personhood?" The issue here is that unions are able to take dues money from their members and contribute as much as they like. And if you study the money, it goes to members of Patty Murry's party almost exclusively.

Also, let us not forget that the ruling in question was decided in part based on a government argument that they could use the law struck down to ban books ...

But, hey, I guess it's OK for the government to ban books and for one party to take people's hard-earned money whether those people want to contribute it or not and use it to finance their campaigns.

But, those evil corportations and new citizen super PACS ... SQUIRREL!



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




The issue here is that unions are able to take dues money from their members and contribute as much as they like.



I have no problem with my union [SAG/AFTRA] contributing to political parties or candidates that support the best interests of the American working man.

Corporations have no interest in anything except profit for their share holders, and wall street greed and corruption.

edit on 4-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Corporations have a hell of a lot more money than unions due.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join