Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Senate Advances Constitutional Fix To Overturn Citizens United

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-vote-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united--2


A Democratic-led constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and subsequent rulings loosening restrictions on money in politics moved forward in the Senate on Monday evening.

The procedural vote was 79 in favor, 18 against.

The vote means the Senate can begin debate on the measure. But it is highly unlikely to ultimately pass the chamber as it faces fierce Republican opposition. It would need to clear another 60-vote threshold in order to end debate and come to a final vote. And that final vote would require the support of two-thirds of senators to succeed.

The measure, proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), would restore the legal right of Congress to establish campaign spending limits. Approved by committee on a party line basis in July, it is one of several pre-election votes Senate Democrats are planning in an attempt to highlight the contrast between the two parties before Americans head to the polls.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said Republicans are happy to debate the measure, but "to be clear, there is zero support on our side for rewriting the First Amendment to restrict free speech."

Democrats chose to spotlight the issue because the public is on their side. Most Americans oppose the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2010, which wiped out limits on independent expenditures aimed at influencing elections, thereby giving rise to super PACs. Earlier this year, the same five justices ruled to further loosen campaign finance restrictions on aggregate spending by an individual to political candidates and committees in a given cycle.

In both cases, all five Republican-appointed justices voted to remove restrictions, while all four Democratic-appointed justices voted to uphold them.

McConnell, an ardent opponent of campaign finance restrictions, wrote an opinion piece for Politico magazine ahead of the vote bashing "the Democrats' assault on free speech," a line of attack also used by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Progressive activists have been aggressively campaigning for the measure, viewing it as a long-term project. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, argued that the issue would help Democrats "excite voters this November."


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

So I have to ask our GOP supporters, would you like to see Citizens United overturned and a reigning in of money in politics?

If so, you're about to experience some cognitive dissonance.


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00259

Guest


Guest

As long as it applies to the Dems .....

Guest


Guest

I'd prefer limits on the politician... who they can come into contact with... the circumstance clear and transparent under which they may make agreements. An accounting of special interest contact, their interest, and agenda.

Politicians found to be corrupt are hung in the public square... and instant recall for those not acting for constituents.

No limits on private citizens pooling their money for political speak. I'd also like to see a drastic cut in pay. I think we would be better served by true citizen legislators... not career politicians. New hampshire has a pretty good system. Less central control would help with alot of this crap too.

Edit: And set two term limit on EVERY position... starting at the lowest of local office. If you've done a good job you can keep moving up into higher office with more responsiblity... if not... hit the road jack. Being a blow hard partisan hack shouldn't earn you a golden parachute.

Markle

Markle

Congress has no power to "overturn" the Supreme Court. Any such law would be before the Supreme Court again with the same decision.

If free speech were, somehow, ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, what would our semi-retired President do with his free time?

Was it Senator Obama or Senator McCain who broke who broke all records in Spending in 2008? Which outspent the other 2 to 1?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:Congress has no power to "overturn" the Supreme Court.  Any such law would be before the Supreme Court again with the same decision.

If free speech were, somehow, ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, what would our semi-retired President do with his free time?

Was it Senator Obama or Senator McCain who broke who broke all records in Spending in 2008?  Which outspent the other 2 to 1?

Totally frustrated and apprehensive that his favorite corporate bloodsuckers may be barred from political participation, our resident Nazi chooses to overlook the fact that the Constitution can be changed by amendment -- and that's exactly what is being attempted now.

Whew ... what's that smell? Herr Markle, go change your shorts ...

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:Congress has no power to "overturn" the Supreme Court.  Any such law would be before the Supreme Court again with the same decision.

If free speech were, somehow, ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, what would our semi-retired President do with his free time?

Was it Senator Obama or Senator McCain who broke who broke all records in Spending in 2008?  Which outspent the other 2 to 1?

Totally frustrated and apprehensive that his favorite corporate bloodsuckers may be barred from political participation, our resident Nazi chooses to overlook the fact that the Constitution can be changed by amendment -- and that's exactly what is being attempted now.  

Whew ... what's that smell?  Herr Markle, go change your shorts ...

Do you really believe such an amendment, restricting free speech, would pass all the hurdles?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:Congress has no power to "overturn" the Supreme Court.  Any such law would be before the Supreme Court again with the same decision.

If free speech were, somehow, ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, what would our semi-retired President do with his free time?

Was it Senator Obama or Senator McCain who broke who broke all records in Spending in 2008?  Which outspent the other 2 to 1?

Totally frustrated and apprehensive that his favorite corporate bloodsuckers may be barred from political participation, our resident Nazi chooses to overlook the fact that the Constitution can be changed by amendment -- and that's exactly what is being attempted now.  

Whew ... what's that smell?  Herr Markle, go change your shorts ...

Do you really believe such an amendment, restricting free speech, would pass all the hurdles?


Absolutely!

Guest


Guest

Yep
Obama outspent McCain by far and got money from all over the world to do so

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Pacedog and Herr Markle: The object of the "Constitutional Fix" to end Citizens United is to terminate the current attempt by the ultra rich or mammoth corporations to control elections through campaign financing and advertising.

It's aimed at BOTH parties.

Thanks for letting us know you're advocates for big money to control elections at the expense of the American people.

It's good to know your enemies!

Screw America Inc.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:Pacedog and Herr Markle: The object of the "Constitutional Fix" to end Citizens United is to terminate the current attempt by the ultra rich or mammoth corporations to control elections through campaign financing and advertising.

It's aimed at BOTH parties.

Thanks for letting us know you're advocates for big money to control elections at the expense of the American people.

It's good to know your enemies!

Screw America Inc.

I hear the intent... but I've been around too long now to take that at face value. I hope they read this before the vote.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Th Dude wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Pacedog and Herr Markle: The object of the "Constitutional Fix" to end Citizens United is to terminate the current attempt by the ultra rich or mammoth corporations to control elections through campaign financing and advertising.  

It's aimed at BOTH parties.

Thanks for letting us know you're advocates for big money to control elections at the expense of the American people.

It's good to know your enemies!

Screw America Inc.

I hear the intent... but I've been around too long now to take that at face value. I hope they read this before the vote.



It will never make it to a vote because Republicans will never let this leave debate.


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Money is not speech. McConnell is ridiculous in his claim that an overturn of Citizens United by constitutional amendment somehow abridges free speech.

Sal

Sal

And, ....

.... the amendment is dead ....

.... on a straight party line vote ....

.... every single Democrat voted for the people, and every single Repuke voted for the billionaires.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Money is not speech. McConnell is ridiculous in his claim that an overturn of Citizens United by constitutional amendment somehow abridges free speech.

How many political commercials/messages can the average person afford?

boards of FL

boards of FL

Th Dude wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Money is not speech.  McConnell is ridiculous in his claim that an overturn of Citizens United by constitutional amendment somehow abridges free speech.

How many political commercials/messages can the average person afford?


How does this directly address the comment that you are quoting?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Th Dude wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Money is not speech.  McConnell is ridiculous in his claim that an overturn of Citizens United by constitutional amendment somehow abridges free speech.

How many political commercials/messages can the average person afford?


How does this directly address the comment that you are quoting?

That the norm is for monies to be pooled for political speech today... it's done by many entities.

Unions, universities, churches, industries, interest groups, social orgs, political actions... Where are lines to be drawn?

boards of FL

boards of FL

Th Dude wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Th Dude wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Money is not speech.  McConnell is ridiculous in his claim that an overturn of Citizens United by constitutional amendment somehow abridges free speech.

How many political commercials/messages can the average person afford?


How does this directly address the comment that you are quoting?

That the norm is for monies to be pooled for political speech today... it's done by many entities.

Unions, universities, churches, industries, interest groups, social orgs, political actions...  Where are lines to be drawn?


Somewhere shy of infinity, preferably. And donors should probably be public. If foreign interests are investing in US politics, there should be a disclaimer on the BS political ad.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum