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.

 

Reversing the grievous error of Citizens United

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Two Representatives in the U.S. House wrote an op-ed article published in the Washington Post the other day.

This comes at the same time a bill was introduced in the U.S. House H.R. 20: Government By the People Act of 2014

The main theme is to somehow "amend" the U.S. Constitution and somehow "exclude" the points of the Supreme Court decision referred to as the "Citizens United" case.

A few other points are also mentioned.

Not easy to get around the 1st unless something really is harmful or violent I think (like yelling "fire" in a theater for example).

Where exactly would we *Draw the Line* on freedom of speech?

How does the phrase "Money Talks" actually play in the "Freedom of Speech"?

Is the whole concept of campaign contributions just symbolic of advertising to targeted audiences?

Does fully disclosing the money sources Really solve the insane jealousy problem?

"2nd" Opinions have some other possible repercussions like affecting freedom of the press and religious free speech because media and churches are corporations too.




Opinions
Reversing the grievous error of Citizens United
By Nancy Pelosi and John Sarbanes, Published: February 4

Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, represents California’s 12th Congressional District. John Sarbanes, a Democrat, represents Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District.

Americans have seen it on their televisions and heard it on their radios: political ads backed by unnamed sources; the work of so-called advocacy groups backed by undisclosed donors; damaging policy agendas orchestrated by special interests; endless money muddying the waters of our debate with confusion and voter suppression.

This has been the impact over the past four years of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The narrow court majority, overturning decades of precedent, opened the floodgates to millions of dollars in secret, special-interest spending on elections. Indeed, Citizens United shook the foundation of our democracy: the principle that, in the United States of America, it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government.


Reversing the grievous error of Citizens United




Related


Nancy Pelosi: Amend the Constitution to overturn Supreme Court decision


H.R. 20: Government By the People Act of 2014




posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Libs love to rewrite the Constitution when it fits their agenda. Other times they just ignore the Constitution when that fits their agenda. Nancy Pelosi would be the idiot in Hillary Clinton's village.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
So now they want to rewrite the first and 2nd amendments .. what is next?



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04
So now they want to rewrite the first and 2nd amendments .. what is next?


The first amendment rights were rewritten (reinterpreted) by the supreme court when they determined a corporation (an entity for commerce), has the same rights as a actual person.

They are currently proposing a bill:


H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, which is to be introduced Wednesday. This sensible, straightforward legislation would:

● Encourage the participation of everyday Americans in the funding of campaigns by providing a refundable $25 My Voice Tax Credit. This would bring the voices of the broader public into the funding side of campaigns and democratize the relationship between money and speech.

● Establish a Freedom From Influence Matching Fund to boost the power of small-dollar contributions. To be eligible for these matching funds, a candidate would have to agree to a limit on large donations and demonstrate broad-based support from a network of small-dollar contributors. Amplified by the Freedom From Influence Matching Fund, the voices of everyday Americans would be as powerful as those of big donors.

● Provide candidates with an opportunity to earn additional resources in the homestretch of a campaign so that the voices of the people are not completely drowned out by super political action committees and other dark-money interests. In the wake of Citizens United, this kind of support is critical to ensuring that citizen-backed candidates have staying power.


www.washingtonpost.com... ab-fe5228217bd1_story.html

Whether or not there is something inherently bad tied in with the bill that might a sweeping negative influence, I can't say as I haven't read the bill. But it's not as if the decision by the supreme court was in line with the constitution or its intention when it was drafted.


Americans have seen it on their televisions and heard it on their radios: political ads backed by unnamed sources; the work of so-called advocacy groups backed by undisclosed donors; damaging policy agendas orchestrated by special interests; endless money muddying the waters of our debate with confusion and voter suppression.

This has been the impact over the past four years of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The narrow court majority, overturning decades of precedent, opened the floodgates to millions of dollars in secret, special-interest spending on elections. Indeed, Citizens United shook the foundation of our democracy: the principle that, in the United States of America, it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government.


That's my take anyway.
edit on 9-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yeah, politics aside, Citizens United is dumb. Leave it alone, and watch it blossom into the future, and the dumb will get worse and worse. Especially as robots get involved. www.zerohedge.com...

But Its what SCOTUS ruled, and those trying to undo it are on constitutionally shaky ground. I just wish SCOTUS would stop with their nonsense passivity on the issue, and realize they have the power to overturn the previous precedents. Everyone understands: People are people, people alone are people. When you get away from the 2+2=4 basics like that and start claiming that groups of people come together like Voltron to legally form new people, you weaken the entire fabric of the American experiment. I can't wait for the Supreme Court to find itself having to declare the rights of an army of pleasure tool shaped spam robots to march the streets 24/7 as constitutional because they are part of a corporation, and as such, represent the "free speech" of the corporation, and thus a "person".
edit on 9-2-2014 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Does fully disclosing the money sources Really solve the insane jealousy problem?


Jealousy problem? Is that what's causing all the issues on the hill?



"2nd" Opinions have some other possible repercussions like affecting freedom of the press and religious free speech because media and churches are corporations too.


The media should be banned from all elections coverage based on how they've performed lately.
^Note sarcasm

"Who loves America more?" … is not a valid question for a presidential debate.

Journalism:dead
edit on 9-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Cause, effect.

As our so called greatest thinkers, psychologists, and whomever the "establishment" is comprised of, think they understand the mind and potential behaviors of individuals due to whatever associated precursor they can came up with, in this case specifically, what people may say, post, text, etc etc....we will travel further and further down a path of Orwellian precision.

Does anyone remember that quantum experiment, showing how the photon acted as a wave when no observers were present, but acted as a single, collapsed particle when observed? Perhaps in a way we as a species DO guide the paradigm which mostly governs our people. Surely we must understand that we have much to learn, before we can begin even if solidly trifling with many of the things we are messing with.

But that's just me...

Take it or leave it, it was afterall a rant of sorts.
edit on 9-2-2014 by 1Providence1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

boncho

OccamsRazor04
So now they want to rewrite the first and 2nd amendments .. what is next?


The first amendment rights were rewritten (reinterpreted) by the supreme court when they determined a corporation (an entity for commerce), has the same rights as a actual person.

They are currently proposing a bill:


H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, which is to be introduced Wednesday. This sensible, straightforward legislation would:

● Encourage the participation of everyday Americans in the funding of campaigns by providing a refundable $25 My Voice Tax Credit. This would bring the voices of the broader public into the funding side of campaigns and democratize the relationship between money and speech.

● Establish a Freedom From Influence Matching Fund to boost the power of small-dollar contributions. To be eligible for these matching funds, a candidate would have to agree to a limit on large donations and demonstrate broad-based support from a network of small-dollar contributors. Amplified by the Freedom From Influence Matching Fund, the voices of everyday Americans would be as powerful as those of big donors.

● Provide candidates with an opportunity to earn additional resources in the homestretch of a campaign so that the voices of the people are not completely drowned out by super political action committees and other dark-money interests. In the wake of Citizens United, this kind of support is critical to ensuring that citizen-backed candidates have staying power.


www.washingtonpost.com... ab-fe5228217bd1_story.html

Whether or not there is something inherently bad tied in with the bill that might a sweeping negative influence, I can't say as I haven't read the bill. But it's not as if the decision by the supreme court was in line with the constitution or its intention when it was drafted.


Americans have seen it on their televisions and heard it on their radios: political ads backed by unnamed sources; the work of so-called advocacy groups backed by undisclosed donors; damaging policy agendas orchestrated by special interests; endless money muddying the waters of our debate with confusion and voter suppression.

This has been the impact over the past four years of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The narrow court majority, overturning decades of precedent, opened the floodgates to millions of dollars in secret, special-interest spending on elections. Indeed, Citizens United shook the foundation of our democracy: the principle that, in the United States of America, it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government.


That's my take anyway.
edit on 9-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)
Is a union a person? When you can explain that then I'll give you that corporations are not people.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join