If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Nation)   Under-covered political movements: 16 states call for an amendment to overturn Citizens United   (thenation.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, Citizens United, 16th state, constitutional amendments, United States, Republican parties, Oregon legislature, Arctic Alaska, Common Cause  
•       •       •

1344 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jul 2013 at 12:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-08 12:02:42 PM
Do you think the press wants this? Where do you think all that advertising cash goes?
 
2013-07-08 12:03:04 PM
with backing (in the form of legislative resolutions or statewide referendum results) from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia. The District of Columbia is also supportive of the move to amend

I think I see a problem here.
 
2013-07-08 12:06:22 PM

theknuckler_33: with backing (in the form of legislative resolutions or statewide referendum results) from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia. The District of Columbia is also supportive of the move to amend

I think I see a problem here.


The only problem I see is being 18 short.
 
2013-07-08 12:06:29 PM

theknuckler_33: with backing (in the form of legislative resolutions or statewide referendum results) from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia. The District of Columbia is also supportive of the move to amend

I think I see a problem here.


Sixteen states and fourteen are blue. I think I see the same problem.
 
2013-07-08 12:07:20 PM

theknuckler_33: with backing (in the form of legislative resolutions or statewide referendum results) from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia. The District of Columbia is also supportive of the move to amend

I think I see a problem here.


No "Real" American states?
 
2013-07-08 12:11:29 PM
Interestingly enough, neither Utah nor Arizona are on that list. I womder why?

Oh, that's right.... Utah is so goddam "business friendly" that we have legal, "legitimate" MLM companies as havy hitters around here. Questionable "energy drinks"? Come one down, but you have a lot of competition. What about your "nutritional supplements"? We have those here, too. Companies that you hardly hear of, if at all, are the norm here in Utah, and they're HUGE and have a ton of pull. Why would we want to take away their personhood?
 
2013-07-08 12:17:44 PM
We have had 34 states petition for a balanced budget amendment, along with a couple of other issues.  Congress never recognizes these petitions publicly, but the theory goes that they feel they don't have to recognize them unless all 34 occur in the same session of (federal) Congress.  That hasn't happened yet.

Congress does not want an Article 5 convention to begin this way.  Such a convention, once started by 34 states, could become open-ended with the agreement of 26 of those states.  Then, they could rewrite the entire Constitution with the agreement of the representatives of 38 states.  No member of Congress would have power to stop such a thing.

The only reason the 17th amendment passed the House and Senate was due to the threat that states might begin an Article 5 convention.
 
2013-07-08 12:24:40 PM
16 States call for an amendment to overturn Citizens United

Awesome.

Fark Citizens United, and honestly, fark any of you who believe that free speech= $$$
 
2013-07-08 12:25:38 PM
Yawn.

Wake me when this is passed by 34 states calling for a constitutional convention.

No, seriously, this is good, and I'm very interested in finding out what sort of amendment they are looking to pass, as just overturning Citizens United would seem to be a very small goal for an amendment.

I still say that there should be a law prohibiting contributions from donors who do not live in the same jurisdiction as the candidate.

For the rest of these suggestions, we would definitely need to overturn Citizens United in some way:

- Corporations may not give hard money contributions or soft money contributions to groups allowed to give money to candidates' campaigns
- Ads that focus on a politician or group of politicians must have full disclosure of donors. If you want an ad to mention only the sponsors or cosponsors of a particular bill, or only the supporters/opposers/uncommited of a bill, we do not need full disclosure. Corporations must identify the source of the message.
- Ads that use ``magic words'' like vote, elect, endorse, support, defeat, &c. must have full disclosure of donors.
 
2013-07-08 12:29:03 PM

GentDirkly: The only reason the 17th amendment passed the House and Senate was due to the threat that states might begin an Article 5 convention.


Actually, no. That might have been part of the reason, but the biggest reason it passed is because it wasn't working. Often states would take years or decades to fill vacancies, and there were problems with deadlocked voting and other political wrangling. It was a good idea at the time, but I'm glad it's no longer the case.
 
2013-07-08 12:29:41 PM

Mikey1969: Interestingly enough, neither Utah nor Arizona are on that list. I womder why?

Oh, that's right.... Utah is so goddam "business friendly" that we have legal, "legitimate" MLM companies as havy hitters around here. Questionable "energy drinks"? Come one down, but you have a lot of competition. What about your "nutritional supplements"? We have those here, too. Companies that you hardly hear of, if at all, are the norm here in Utah, and they're HUGE and have a ton of pull. Why would we want to take away their personhood?


But Nu Skin was pitched to me by the bishop's wife. It has to be on the level!

/On to recruit more "business partners"
 
2013-07-08 12:53:21 PM
Add in some municipalities too.
 
2013-07-08 01:05:46 PM

andrewagill: Yawn.

Wake me when this is passed by 34 states calling for a constitutional convention.

No, seriously, this is good, and I'm very interested in finding out what sort of amendment they are looking to pass, as just overturning Citizens United would seem to be a very small goal for an amendment.

I still say that there should be a law prohibiting contributions from donors who do not live in the same jurisdiction as the candidate.

For the rest of these suggestions, we would definitely need to overturn Citizens United in some way:

- Corporations may not give hard money contributions or soft money contributions to groups allowed to give money to candidates' campaigns
- Ads that focus on a politician or group of politicians must have full disclosure of donors. If you want an ad to mention only the sponsors or cosponsors of a particular bill, or only the supporters/opposers/uncommited of a bill, we do not need full disclosure. Corporations must identify the source of the message.
- Ads that use ``magic words'' like vote, elect, endorse, support, defeat, &c. must have full disclosure of donors.


No constitutional amendment is needed to force the disclosure of donors to political messaging.  A simple act of Congress is all that is needed.  Since Citizens United held that money is speech, it follows that anonymity in such speech is not a protected right.  The problem is, whenever you see an ad, the money paying for that ad came from layer after layer of shell corporations/organizations.  You have to go a few layers deep with Freedom of Information requests before you find the name of a real person or recognizable corporation, if it is even possible in the first place.
 
2013-07-08 01:47:01 PM

whidbey: Fark Citizens United, and honestly, fark any of you who believe that free speech= $$$


Agreed.

I'd even suggest they go one step further - revoke the notion of corporate personhood.  If a company wants to talk politics, its CEO and board of directors, as individuals, can petition the government.  It was a good enough idea for the Canadians to write it into their Charter.
 
2013-07-08 02:42:33 PM

Dinjiin: whidbey: Fark Citizens United, and honestly, fark any of you who believe that free speech= $$$

Agreed.

I'd even suggest they go one step further - revoke the notion of corporate personhood.  If a company wants to talk politics, its CEO and board of directors, as individuals, can petition the government.  It was a good enough idea for the Canadians to write it into their Charter.


Let the corporations have personhood. Full personhood.

Arrest ceo & board of durectors when company breaks the law and they go to jail/prison. After all, they make all that $$$ because they are responsible for the company.

/Campign cotributions should be a matter of full public record and illegal to hide behind shells
 
2013-07-08 02:50:43 PM

Dinjiin: I'd even suggest they go one step further - revoke the notion of corporate personhood.  If a company wants to talk politics, its CEO and board of directors, as individuals, can petition the government.  It was a good enough idea for the Canadians to write it into their Charter.


farking THIS
 
2013-07-08 03:23:51 PM

GentDirkly: Congress does not want an Article 5 convention to begin this way.  Such a convention, once started by 34 states, could become open-ended with the agreement of 26 of those states.  Then, they could rewrite the entire Constitution with the agreement of the representatives of 38 states.  No member of Congress would have power to stop such a thing.


No, they can't.

They can propose amendments.  They can't unilaterally implement anything.  That's the red herring argument behind a constitutional convention - the general mindset is that if an Article V convention occurred, our current constitution would be obliterated.  Not by a long shot.
 
2013-07-09 10:42:37 AM

mactheknife: They can propose amendments. They can't unilaterally implement anything.


Unilaterally? No, it takes 38 states, and last I checked 38≠1.

That said, 38 states (presuming widespread popular support within the state) is more than sufficient to call for a convention, the delegates to which may agree to Amend or even replace the Constitution, and which the 38 states may then ratify such proposals (meeting the existing constitutional threshold); and legally the result is as kosher as matzoh, even if it names Drew Curtis as His Majesty Joshua Norton II, Emperor of these United States.

Regardless, Congress has no legal invitation to the shenannigans. Politically, they probably would be able to try to persuade their fellow citizens that the proposal to ________ is a good/bad idea, just like any other US citizen with a soapbox. But that's it.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report