It's a specific drive to overcome the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United decision. The following language has been put out there for debate, a possible Constitutional amendment:
No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.
Go to the link above to sign the petition, which has already reached almost 100,000 names in one day.
Jerry, won't this prohibit individual support for candidates and political parties? If so, then ONLY the rich will be able to run. I would suggest changing the language to allow contributions in an amount to be established by congress. I am concerned that this language, while well intentioned, may be over-reaching. I have this whole baby/bath water thing in my head.
ReplyDeleteWhere would OBAMA get all of his money?
ReplyDeleteSure, JW, that would be great--if you want to see Art Pope and his millionaire buddies in Congress. Can't say that I agree with your goals, but you've certainly found the means to do it.
ReplyDeletehere is how Obama got his money in the past elections,.47% came from small individual donors (who are limited by law on how much they can donate):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00009638
Shyster,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you make a good point. The amendment language, as written and floated as an IDEA needing debate, seems too long by half -- that many clauses and phrases are bound to contain briar patches of unintended consequences. I am most in favor of the clause that ends the equation money = speech.
Term limits is the answer.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course we will want this to apply to Unions like the NEA and SEIU as well.
ReplyDelete"And of course we will want this to apply to Unions like the NEA and SEIU as well."
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% correct.
Did Obama received the most money from banks, hedge funds, and other at larger individuals who make over $44 million per year than any candidate in the history of the US? Guess that was the other 53%.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely - let's not let either unions or millionaires buy elections. Give candidates equal airtime as they do in many other countries, continue public funding, and at a minimum require full disclosure of political contributions and funding sources.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem we have with campaign financing today is that we no longer seem to have Senators and Representatives who represent geographical areas. Instead, we have them assigned to committees which oversee everything! Banking committees, energy committees, environmental committees, education committees, etc., etc., etc.!
ReplyDeleteAs a result, the various "special inter4est groups"...such as industry organizations, unions, corporations, - anyone who wants government to advance their particular cause - are all lobbying the congress persons who have the ability to influence legislation in committee.
Why should a company in California be contributing large amounts of money and support to a congressperson in Alabama? Shouldn't the Alabama congressperson be representing the people in his Alabama District and not the industry interests of a California company?
Let's impose term limits first. And also let's look at reforms that only allow political contributions to a candidate from those constituents whom the candidate is elected to represent. If you don't have a company, local union, or reside in a congressional District, you should be restricted from contributing to candidates for office in that district.