Constituional Amendment to silence corporations and superpacs

[Wolfstrike]

i looked into this case and it's something that only a fool would vote for. (hence Los Angeles)
this whole thing is created from left-wing hate of companies and ultimately gives power to unions.

i find it appalling that with all of the major problems in this country, this is what they feel they need to make an amendment about.

1) Direct corporate donations to politicians in exchange for favors are illegal , this proposed Amendment does nothing to change that. (obviously this happens every day anyways)

2) What we are talking about is independent efforts to support or slander candidates.
this IS a Constitutional right.

3) The current legal ruling says independent Corporations AND UNIONS have the right to freely do their own independent support for or against a politician.
The L.A. prop and proposed amendment only restricts corporate money, ..so what does that leave us with? freedom for unions to support or attack politicians, meanwhile all corporate money will be banned. (this is not an example of a free country)

4) This proposed amendment does nothing to keep the rich out of politics, as some people would think it might.
if an owner/CEO pays himself 100 million, he's free to spend his own money to support or slander candidates.

5) Incorporation itself, was created to give a business the same rights as a person, once again, this amendment would not change that

6) By voting for this amendment you would limit your own exposure to information

FOR EXAMPLE:
let's say a businessman wants to hit the jackpot and win public office.
he comes up with a plan to tax milk 200% and give it to the school system for "education".

the school unions, who would like to have more money to spend when they go to Vegas, would be able to collect money from their unions members, run independent ads on TV and tell everyone to vote for this guy.
Milk Farmers of America would not be able to use any on their own corporate money to buy time on TV and say , "hey! this guy is going to jack up the price of milk, and help run our companies out of business"

i don't want people silenced, corporate or not corporate.
if someone has something important to tell me about a candidate, i want to hear it, ...i'm a big boy, i can make my own decisions.



there was no rebuttal placed in the California ballot, voters knew nothing about this prop.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Corporations are business entities, not people. There is nothing in the main body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights suggesting corporations have the rights of citizens.

With a few very specific exceptions limiting the rights of corporations benefits the nation, mainly because corporations currently have all of the rights and none of the responsibilities natural born citizens have.

Let's hope California can get something right for a change and begin the process of dialing back corporate power over citizens.

 

[OKTexas]

Unions are corporations also, if the amendment tried to spereate unions form other corporations it will never withstand a court challenge.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Since KELO and including CITIZENS as well as Obamacare, the supreme court has burned its own credibility faster than the Treasury has burned cash. While we live with these reeking scum, there is no duty to honor their decisions passively. We can work against decisions of these lowlife motherfuckers. For example, if the Lost Tribe can try to overturn a reasonable decision like ROE, then reasonable people can work to overturn decisions that go against everything that made America great.

Money bought CITIZENS. Roberts was the bag man between Baker and Rehnquist in 2000. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are also open partisans making no apologies for selling out the United States for party and for corporations. Kennedy is a whimsical nutball who came down on the wrong side of this one.

But I digress...

Unions are entities for sure; nothing "natural born" about them. Never saw a union charter, but it would surprise me if unions are not a form of corporation with members as nominal stockholders, something like the structure some insurance companies have where policy holders are nominal stockholders.

If by some technicality unions are not corporations already, unions can easily be made subject to the same restrictions as corporations.

My objective and the objective of many, is to get "entities" including unions, churches, corporations, chambers of commerce, more - out of party/partisan politics per se by ending direct AND INDIRECT contributions, as well as making direct paid lobbying illegal, thereby encouraging natural born persons to determine the nation's future.

If US politics are reformed in favor of natural born citizens, pretty much everything from tax policy to immigration will resolve itself in favor of citizens which over time ensures best results (see, 1776-1960). Until US politics are reformed, natural born citizens are going to suck hind tit.

 

[Oldguy]

Corporations are business entities, not people. There is nothing in the main body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights suggesting corporations have the rights of citizens.

With a few very specific exceptions limiting the rights of corporations benefits the nation, mainly because corporations currently have all of the rights and none of the responsibilities natural born citizens have.

Let's hope California can get something right for a change and begin the process of dialing back corporate power over citizens.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you in the Citizens United ruling, in which they held that a corporation has the same free speech rights as a person. Moreover, the Hobby Lobby case making its way to the Court now would establish the precedent that corporations also have the same freedom of religion that individuals enjoy. Together, those cases represent a clear and present danger to The People because once the idea is accepted that corporations have the same Constitutional rights as people, there is nothing to prevent corporations from voting, which would dramatically tilt the body politic.

On the other hand, corporations have an interest in the government which supports and protects them and it would be unfair, and probably un-Constitutional, to prevent them from lobbying in their own behalf as The People do.

It's a conundrum to be sure, but one which must be addressed before we inadvertently hand corporations the power to openly and legitimately control the outcome of elections.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals want to repeal the 1A and the 2A. They're fine with the 5A because they can cover their misdeeds with it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Since KELO and including CITIZENS as well as Obamacare, the supreme court has burned its own credibility faster than the Treasury has burned cash. While we live with these reeking scum, there is no duty to honor their decisions passively. We can work against decisions of these lowlife motherfuckers. For example, if the Lost Tribe can try to overturn a reasonable decision like ROE, then reasonable people can work to overturn decisions that go against everything that made America great.

Money bought CITIZENS. Roberts was the bag man betweeun Baker and Rehnquist in 2000. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are also open partisans making no apologies for selling out the United States for party and for corporations. Kennedy is a whimsical nutball who came down on the wrong side of this one.

But I digress...

Unions are entities for sure; nothing "natural born" about them. Never saw a union charter, but it would surprise me if unions are not a form of corporation with members as nominal stockholders, something like the structure some insurance companies have where policy holders are nominal stockholders.

If by some technicality unions are not corporations already, unions can easily be made subject to the same restrictions as corporations.

My objective and the objective of many, is to get "entities" including unions, churches, corporations, chambers of commerce, more - out of party/partisan politics per se by ending direct AND INDIRECT contributions, as well as making direct paid lobbying illegal, thereby encouraging natural born persons to determine the nation's future.

If US politics are reformed in favor of natural born citizens, pretty much everything from tax policy to immigration will resolve itself in favor of citizens which over time ensures best results (see, 1776-1960). Until US politics are reformed, natural born citizens are going to suck hind tit.

I like the timeframe, but citizens is only a few years old, i hink the 60s killed this country

 

[Staidhup]

Corporations are business entities, not people. There is nothing in the main body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights suggesting corporations have the rights of citizens.

With a few very specific exceptions limiting the rights of corporations benefits the nation, mainly because corporations currently have all of the rights and none of the responsibilities natural born citizens have.

Let's hope California can get something right for a change and begin the process of dialing back corporate power over citizens.

Just one response and brief observation, Freedom of speech. As for Unions, why is it that "it," not being a human or citizen, be afforded unrestricted rights over corporations? Your argument is on thin ice, in fact, fails to pass muster.

This administration and self proclaimed party of the people is and has exercised every ounce of energy in restricting the freedom of the press, controlling the media and employing the IRS in silencing the voice of opposition. To think the time has finally arrived that even Richard Nixon would look like a saint.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The treatment of Corporations as a "person" was a compromise in order to be able to tax them.

Only "people" can be taxed as having an income, therefore if you are going to have a corporate income tax, they have to be a "people".

 

[Wolfstrike]

this proposed amendment is very misleading.

it's not about WHAT is campaigning, it's about where people are getting their money from.

1) incorporation gives businesses the same rights as a human, this amendment wouldn't change that.

2) direct campaigning or contrabutions to a candidate for political favors is illegal, this amendnment wouldn't change that.

basically, this proposed amendment says , that if you get your money from a corporation, even though you are completly unreated to a politician, you have to keep your mouth shut.

but if you get your money from some union effort, you can independently campaign all you want.

the end result is, candidates would always have to be on good terms with unions.


it's unconstitutional.

 

[noose4]

Teddy had it right

"Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly."
– Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Katzndogz]

Why don't democrats just take off the disguise and make the whole republican party illegal. This chipping away at rights a bit at a time is getting annoying.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Supreme Court can and does make the wrong decision such as the Dred Scott decision.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If you support unions giving money to candidates and not allowing companies to do the same, you are a hypocrite.

and vice versa

 

[rightwinger]

The treatment of Corporations as a "person" was a compromise in order to be able to tax them.

Only "people" can be taxed as having an income, therefore if you are going to have a corporate income tax, they have to be a "people".

Dumbest post of the day

 

[noose4]

If you support unions giving money to candidates and not allowing companies to do the same, you are a hypocrite.

and vice versa

Take the big business contributions away then unions would not have to spend such funds.

 

[g5000]

Link to this "proposed Amendment", please.

 

[g5000]

i looked into this case and it's something that only a fool would vote for. (hence Los Angeles)
this whole thing is created from left-wing hate of companies and ultimately gives power to unions.

Since you "looked into this case", you can surely provide a link to this amendment which bans corporate electioneering yet allows union electioneering.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So SuperPACs and Corporations aren't entitled to their Constitutional rights? Don't you people pay attention?

Obama: Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United | The Daily Caller

 

[g5000]

So SuperPACs and Corporations aren't entitled to their Constitutional rights? Don't you people pay attention?

Obama: Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United | The Daily Caller

Still waiting on that text of the amendment which says unions will be exempt. There is nothing in your link about corporations or unions.