Citizen's United

#1
VOLatile

VOLatile

BRB Pooping
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
14,622
Likes
803
#1
An amendment to overturn Citizen's United has passed the Senate 79-18.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
So is the next step to go back and declare that corporations aren't actually people and cannot donate money?
 
#4
#4
davethevol said:
So is the next step to go back and declare that corporations aren't actually people and cannot donate money?
Click to expand...

The next step is that it'll probably be killed later this week. Passing an amendment is extra convoluted compared to passing a bill.

This post was me being hopeful.
 
#7
#7
This simply keeps the democrats from being able to use it against the Republicans for the next two months. It has no chance of ratification.
 
#9
#9
This is nothing more than Harry Reid vs The Koch brothers. Harry can't speak without mentioning the Kochs.

I think Harry loves Koch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
Gramps said:
79 - 18 is more than Harry Reid.
Click to expand...

I get that Gramps, but this works both ways for each party. The fact that the Koch's have spent more money than the dems, Harry had to do something about it.

If Dems were getting this kinda support there wouldn't be a vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
Before anyone gets too excited. The Senate did NOT vote to pass the amendment. They voted to move the amendment to the floor for debate. The 79-18 was the vote to allow the amendment to move to the floor for debate; not the vote in favor/against the amendment.

Senate moves forward with amendment to the Constitution on elections | TheHill

This is typical election year tactics to motivate the Dem base.
 
#14
#14
volinbham said:
Before anyone gets too excited. The Senate did NOT vote to pass the amendment. They voted to move the amendment to the floor for debate. The 79-18 was the vote to allow the amendment to move to the floor for debate; not the vote in favor/against the amendment.

Senate moves forward with amendment to the Constitution on elections | TheHill

This is typical election year tactics to motivate the Dem base.
Click to expand...


I don't think the Dem base is going to be all that motivated, no matter what the leadership does.

The interesting thing will be whether impeachment gets legs if the GOP does take the Senate. If so, it would be the absolute demographic shift death knell of the GOP. Literal political suicide.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
I don't think the Dem base is going to be all that motivated, no matter what the leadership does.

The interesting thing will be whether impeachment gets legs if the GOP does take the Senate. If so, it would be the absolute demographic shift death knell of the GOP. Literal political suicide.
Click to expand...
$$$
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 78
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
volinbham said:
Before anyone gets too excited. The Senate did NOT vote to pass the amendment. They voted to move the amendment to the floor for debate. The 79-18 was the vote to allow the amendment to move to the floor for debate; not the vote in favor/against the amendment.

Senate moves forward with amendment to the Constitution on elections | TheHill

This is typical election year tactics to motivate the Dem base.
Click to expand...

November 04, 2014 is going to be a terrible day for the Dems unless some type of miracle happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
Gramps said:
November 04, 2014 is going to be a terrible day for the Dems unless some type of miracle happens.
Click to expand...

Like always, the Dems will make sure lots of dead people vote....so it could be close.

Remember, the Dems are anti-voter ID.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
No. The GOP would guarantee no black or Hispanic outreach. Ever.
Click to expand...

Freed the slaves, granted voting rights to blacks, created civil rights legislation and pressured the democrat president to sign it, created massive black and hispanic hiring initiatives in the government in the 1970's....

No need for more outreach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
Why Is Al Franken Afraid of Free Speech? | Power Line

Posted on September 9, 2014 by John Hinderaker in First Amendment
Why Is Al Franken Afraid of Free Speech?

Al Franken is a former comedian and television performer. He used to have a radio show, and he contributed to an oral history in which he described his own cocaine use. So one might expect him to be an advocate for free speech.

Instead, Franken appeared yesterday at a rally on Capitol Hill in support of the Udall bill to partially repeal the First Amendment. The Democrats’ proposal is sweeping: it would give Congress the power to limit spending and in-kind contributions in all federal elections. (For good measure, it would give state legislatures the power to do the same in state elections.) If the amendment were to pass, Congress could make it impossible to challenge incumbents by setting all spending limits at zero, or some other ridiculously low level. The proposal would also allow Congress to ban books or movies that it thinks might influence voters in the “wrong” direction, e.g., the latest film by Dinesh D’Souza. It is the most outrageous infringement of free speech that has been seriously proposed in the United States since the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Yesterday’s rally was typical Democratic astroturf. There were more reporters present than “demonstrators.” You can barely see Franken at the podium in this photo. Click to enlarge:

Washington-20140908-00420

Note the printed signs: “Get Money Out.” Whose money do you suppose paid for the signs? I have participated in a number of demonstrations, but never once have I had a printed sign.

These boxes supposedly contain petitions in support of the amendment restricting free speech. Ironically, each one bears the name of a Democratic Party “dark money” group:

Washington-20140908-00415

The ACLU has listed some of the implications of Franken’s anti-free speech amendment:

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is the 28th Amendment:

• Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office;

• Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change denier”;

• Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party;

• A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;

• A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors;

• A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions; and

• Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats).

Such examples are not only plausible, they are endless.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top