begooode Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending. The amendment would allow Congress and states to put limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office. "The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement. The amendment would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns. "Amending the Constitution is an extraordinary step, but it is the only way to safeguard our democratic process against the threat of unrestrained and anonymous spending by wealthy individuals and corporations," he added. "This amendment will restore power to everyday citizens." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/442697-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 On 3/3/2019 at 11:41 AM, LongTimeFan said: @Number9 is spot on about lobbyists. I have mentioned before that if you get the money out of politics, things would change rapidly. The average income in the USA is around $60,000. So 5% is $3,000. I think that is a generous amount that someone is willing to give to a political party annually. Each politician has their own code. Each donation must be by check with the politicians code on it. No code, no donation. Each check must have the persons ssn. No ssn, no donation. All donations go to one office. The office is paid for by taking 1% of the donation. The office logs the donation. The $3000 can be spread among different politicians. But $3000 max annually. If the person wants to give more, than 90% goes to helping vets, or education or something both dems and repubs agree on. No more special dinners, unions, lobbyists, super PACs, etc. I agree. I have posted this idea before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgo Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 It's a great idea and should absolutely happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 1 hour ago, tgo said: It's a great idea and should absolutely happen. Thus, it won’t... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgo Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, Starkiller said: Thus, it won’t... Yeah, it won't - at least not anytime soon. But it should. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot1 Posted May 9, 2019 Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 They should focus more on Buckley v. Valeo. That’s what really got the ball rolling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted May 9, 2019 Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 Whatever steps we can take to even the playing field between small donors and big donors and make the entire process more transparent... I am all for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.