US Congress trying to get power to frustrate elections!

by 5 replies
6
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

Standard fare to claim that this is benign!

Unspecified methods in determining amounts, or restrictions to circumstance or party.

Again, standard fare. And WHY are they making this for the STATE!?!?!?

AGAIN, NO SPECIFICS!

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!!!!!

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
#off topic forum
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • Yes and I am all for it. It's a long shot at getting passed though, but I applaud them for at least trying.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • 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
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 6

    US Congress trying to get power to frustrate elections!

    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