|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Nov 2, 2011 20:41:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Nov 2, 2011 21:17:07 GMT -5
It's not going to get through, for incredibly obvious reasons. They do have balls, though. Takes a lot to stand up to the people financing you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 21:19:07 GMT -5
What's the Citizens United ruling?
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 2, 2011 21:26:48 GMT -5
What's the Citizens United ruling? The article explained that. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 2, 2011 21:39:47 GMT -5
Hm. Wanna look for a really good way to support this.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 21:39:50 GMT -5
What's the Citizens United ruling? The article explained that. I can't access the article, hence the question.  |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 2, 2011 21:42:10 GMT -5
The article explained that. “Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado introduced a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
The decision gave corporations and unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.” |
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Nov 2, 2011 22:18:25 GMT -5
I am glad this is finally being proposed. I doubt it'll go through just yet though. However, this will give great campaign ammo against the GOP congresspeople who vote this down. Assuming the Dems decide to run competent campaigns.
So proud of my senator for sponsoring this.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Nov 2, 2011 22:23:44 GMT -5
I'm glad this is being proposed, sadly like others have pointed out, it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 2, 2011 22:34:13 GMT -5
The article explained that. I can't access the article, hence the question. And just how was I supposed to know that, since you never gave any direct indication of that to begin with? You could have done this weird little thing called "asking" about another source or at least for a description of what the article said. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 2, 2011 23:19:18 GMT -5
Like, for example
"I can't access the article, what was the Citizen's United ruling?"
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 1:27:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 3, 2011 1:55:49 GMT -5
OK, I am a little bit confused though.
Even in the unlikely event that this does pass, how would it actually change anything? I get that the large corporations would not be able to give an unlimited amount of money to fund a political party, but wouldn't they just find other ways to get around the system? I am pretty sure there are other ways inside the system that would allow them to make sure their candidate was elected, the current process and laws just make it more convenient.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Nov 3, 2011 3:04:47 GMT -5
It's not going to get through, for incredibly obvious reasons. They do have balls, though. Takes a lot to stand up to the people financing you. Actually, Wolf-Pac (a political action committee led by The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur) is addressing this very issue. Turns out there're two ways to get the U.S. Constitution amended: the usual way, where Congress votes on it, and a Constitutional Convention. If at least three-quarters of the state governments (38, as of now) agree to have a constitutional convention, the states will then vote on the matter. In the history of the USA, this method has yet to be used, but this is the way Wolf-Pac wants to go, getting the decisions a little further away from the money currently harming the system. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 3, 2011 3:37:50 GMT -5
It's actually 2/3 of the states, and the reason it's never been done is because no one knows how such a convention would operate.
|
|
