US Congress trying to get power to frustrate elections!

5 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Text - S.J.Res.19 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

``Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and
electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising
and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal
elections, including through setting limits on--
Standard fare to claim that this is benign!

``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for
nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office;
and ``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support
of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Unspecified methods in determining amounts, or restrictions to circumstance or party.

``Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and
electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the
raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to
State elections, including through setting limits on--
Again, standard fare. And WHY are they making this for the STATE!?!?!?

``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for
nomination for election to, or for election to, State office;
and
``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support
of, or in opposition to such candidates.
AGAIN, NO SPECIFICS!

``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
Don't worry, we won't "limit the power of the press", but we CAN consider it an "in kind equivalent" and limit fundingand OTHER "in kind equivalents", etc.... Our sole decision!!!!!

``Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''.
We can add onto this without further agreement or amendment by merely amending extra-constitutional laws!

Frankly, this should scare anyone that has ever talked with an attorney about such things.

Why are elected people allowed to so easily vote on the parameters that may affect them in the next election anyway?

Steve
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I'd be happy if the federal election laws went back to the way they were before Citizens United.

    Is this an attempt to roll back to pre Citizens United?

    A single billionaire giving a party or single candidate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars can't be good for the democratic process.

    If this thing ever passes the SC can just jump in like they've already done with C.U. and declare the law unconstitutional.

    But a different SC can also jump in and wipe away Citizen's United and anything this court has been up to.

    BTW...

    Two conservative judges should retire within the next 10 years. (Kennedy and Scalia)

    When that happens, and if there's a dem POTUS, the court will shift away from the 5-4 majority of conservatives it has now.

    The 2016 election will be very important in determining whether C.U. or any law opening the floodgates for unlimited and dark money in federal elections will stand or be scuttled.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9205252].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Is this an attempt to roll back to pre Citizens United?
      Yes and I am all for it. It's a long shot at getting passed though, but I applaud them for at least trying.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9205955].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Yes and I am all for it. It's a long shot at getting passed though, but I applaud them for at least trying.

        I heard Judge Roberts helped shaped the case (which initially didn't have a lot to do with fundraising)...


        ...in order to help the GOP close the fundraising gap - which was huge after the election of 2008.

        The dems were probably going to out fundraise the GOP into the foreseeable future- thanks to the internet and the C.U. ruling was the response by the friends of the GOP on the court.

        They scuttled 100 years of campaign finance law in an attempt try to help the GOP out and I'm not surprised.

        It didn't help in 2012 because the wealthy didn't spend enough money to drown out the POTUS but they have sent a whole bunch of people to the congress whose net effect has been to slow the recovery down to a crawl.

        Hopefully in time, the SC's makeup will change and C.U. will be history.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9206012].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I think they should allow LIMITED PSAs, NO organizational bussing/organizing, NO local personal campaigning, NO incumbent budgets, NO email lists or "social sites", Free travel for the candidates to the debates, and debates should be run by disinterested parties that are NOT to influence the debates!
    There should be NO lobbying or payments. If anyone is found to have taken a bribe, their pay should be docked for three times as much.

    OH, and politicians should NOT be allowed in PSAs, except for campaigns and things relating directly to their job, and should NOT be allowed to star in ANY films or commercials. HECK, there names shouldn't even be used in such cases!

    If we did THAT, we wouldn't have to worry about the unions, monsanto, pharma, OR the big expenses. We could see people for what they are, and lose VERY little. The airlines ALREADY do more than would be required here, and the media does ALSO!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9205300].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Yet both parties are already trying to keep candidates from third parties off the ballots in numerous states. They have been blocking third party presidential candidates from debates for years.
      Anything they do that involves elections will only be done if it benefits both parties and hinders third parties.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9205891].message }}

Trending Topics