It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

NEW Disease Discovered - "Desert Dementia" ...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:40 AM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Here is a bit less biased article (Time) on the Reid initiative.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday he’ll seek a constitutional amendment giving Congress the authority to limit campaign spending by outside groups that can now raise and spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections.

Reid calls for constitutional amendment
edit on 5221414 by rockflier because: added (time)

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:48 AM
a reply to: FarleyWayne

Campaign contributions does not equal Political Speech.

Nice try with the sensationalism...but no intelligent individual would ever claim that he is trying to take away free speech by trying to introduce campaign finance reform. Only propagandist like Brietbart would make such a claim, and only partisans would eat it up and try to spread it.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:51 AM

originally posted by: rockflier
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Actually, the Supreme Court DOES think that corporations are people. Not that I agree, but here is what they say:

But despite the urgings of members of the Court itself and a public shell-shocked by the recent torrent of unregulated corporate expenditures, the Court chose instead to double down and reaffirm the conclusion of Citizens United that corporations are people -- at least as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

Supreme Court

If you don't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling, then you should be in support of this amendment.

Since the Supreme Court made this ruling, the only way to get it reversed is by adding an amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has to follow the Constitution, and with this amendment included in it, they can no longer justify the Citizens United ruling.

So, do you disagree with this amendment or do you disagree with the Supreme Court's can't really disagree with both of them.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:57 AM
a reply to: kruphix

I apologize if my statement appeared ambiguous. I intended to indicate that I disagree with the Court ruling that corporations are an individual. Even though I am very conservative, I recognize that corporate influence on our government has become dangerous. If it takes a Constitutional amendment, that says a lot about our courts and their interpretation of our founding documents. I hope this clarifies.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 10:46 AM
Dehydration then lol

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 12:28 PM

“Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect [to] the Federal elections … [and] State elections.”

Definitely 100% demented !!

So Harry wants his majority to make these decisions eh?

This is a classic example of electioneering !!

Tom Udall is up for election this year. Harry is not (He's safe until 2016).

Congress making these decisions "at will" would allow for the underground cash to flow freely (even more than it already does).

Both sides are raking in millions from the Citizens United case.

The Democrats might like the under the table cash however. Probably because they make more "accounting" "errors"

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 02:02 PM
The majority like the path the USA is taking. The same leaders are getting re-elected which show most people are happy and confident in their leadership. I wonder how so many got so stupid because they can't all be in on the money from the corruption.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in