The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on February 24, 2010, 08:34:19 PM
-
Donnachaidh (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-24-10 05:59 PM
Original message
Dodd introduces constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS on campaign spending
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83469-...
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced a constitutional amendment today to overrule a recent Supreme Court decision on campaign spending.
The court ruled 5-4 last month in Citizens United v. FEC that Congress cannot regulate independent expenditures by corporations and possibly labor unions. The ruling could dramatically increase third party spending on elections.
Dodd's amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would explicitly grant Congress the authority to regulate campaign fundraising and expenditures for federal elections.
The amendment would also let states regular such activity in their own elections.
"I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights,†Dodd said in a statement.
More at the link above --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7787847
Of course the DUmmies miss the irony of the fact that Dodd is one of the biggest corporate whores in Washington. :lmao:
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-24-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Very good Idea, but you will never find 67 Senators to allow it.
I doubt you will find 288 votes in the house. Then we need only 38 states to ratify.
Good luck.
Xipe Totec (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-24-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Let the Republicans try to explain why the voted against the amendment
Edited on Wed Feb-24-10 06:41 PM by Xipe Totec
Good luck with that on the next election.
There'll be a few Dims voting against it too. This isn't nothing more than grandstanding by Dodd.
X_Digger (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-24-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. I disagree with Dodd's disagreement (first part)..
Who I choose to donate to is a form of expression.
However, corporate personhood is fair game.
Anyone have the text of the amendment handy?
Nope, but you can bet that changes will be offered to make it political poison to the Dims, and fodder for the GOP to use against them.
-
Freedom of the press.... the press are corporations
Freedom of speech... books are published by corporations
Talk radio & TV are .... corporations
Yep, we have to stamp those jackboots to make them stop talking about politics just like the founder intended.
lol
-
DemocratUnderground.com is a corporation. We'll have to close it down 60 days before every election.
I can get behind that idea! :p
-
DemocratUnderground.com is a corporation. We'll have to close it down 60 days before every election.
I can get behind that idea! :p
That might be worth sacrificing a mole over. :fuelfire: :evillaugh:
-
DemocratUnderground.com is a corporation. We'll have to close it down 60 days before every election.
I can get behind that idea! :p
I can see all the DUmmies going "Wait, what?" even now!
:rotf:
-
"I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights,†Dodd said in a statement.
Yet again the DemonRats try to stack the deck.