a reply to: mOjOm
I'm not sure I would have had the courage to offer this up as a topic. Congratulations to you, now, let's see if you can make it work.
By the way, does anybody remember what Citizens United
actually said? It's claimed, loudly, that it allows business to buy politicians,
corrupt the process, and lobby legislators. It doesn't.
The case didn't have anything to do with money given by corporations or unions directly to parties or candidates. That's still illegal.
The case was about a lobbying group that wanted to make and show an anti-Hillary movie, back in the 2008 election cycle. The District Court said that
the government could stop Citizens United from advertising the movie or paying to have it shown within 30 days of the Democrat primary because it just
mentioned a candidate. The Supreme Court decided it four years ago.
Not surprisingly, Citizens United asked, "WTF? You telling us we can't express our opinion to the public?" The Supreme Court said, basically,
"Yo, dudes, chill. 'Course you can talk to the peeps. What's this country comin' to if you can't speak truth to power. Go for it." Is there
any difficulty with that?
First, what is it exactly that California has passed? It's not a law, or what is known to nearly everybody as "legislation." It doesn't change
any rule or law anywhere, and may very well have absolutely no effect ever.
From what I can tell, the California legislature (known for pretty much destroying it's own economic and political system) has written a letter to
the US Congress saying, "Pretty please? Will you call for a meeting of the States to discuss this little issue? We promise we won't talk about
anything else, and we don't want you to allow anyone else to talk about anything else. Are we still BFF? Bye."
ANNED may or may not be right, but that's not the point.
First, AJR 1, by itself, changes nothing.
Second, it attempts to tell Congress what purposes it can call the conference for, which it doesn't have the power to do. Regardless of what
California says, Congress can do what it wants. Congress could even call for a Constitutional Convention today. It would still require 38 states to
ratify anything coming out of the convention. Good luck getting that to happen.
There is serious doubt that Congress has any authority over the convention once it is called. The California resolution is basically, a call for a
convention to change the Constitution. There is nothing else of substance in it. California can write that the resolution doesn't give Congress the
authority to call a convention for any other purpose, but no one seriously believes that a State is going to overrule Congress.
Oh, and Citizens United
? Is the objection to corporations and other large organizations putting money and other resources into influencing
elections? I'm not sure, but I think Conservatives would accept that.
Consider, The New York Times
and other newspapers might have to stop printing anything recommending a candidate, they're corporations after
all. If corporations can't put out video or written material about a candidate, why should Hollywood, or the Sierra Club, or Planned Parenthood, or
anyone else? Unions would have to stop their campaigning and door to door solicitations. Why do those corporations get special consideration and
other corporations don't/
Naw, California's resolution doesn't really do anything at all, and that's probably for the best.
There are other problems, but this seems more like a campaign issue and publicity grab than anything of substance.
This is about stopping corporate interests from buying up our government regardless of what agenda they might have.
Well, no, it's
actually not about that. It's an attempt to allow some groups to have political speech rights while denying it to others. It has nothing to do with
giving money to candidates or parties.