A 28th Amendment to overturn Citizens United is within our reach, and Hillary Clinton could make it a reality

This injection of what would be the 28th Amendment into the heart of the presidential race and the top of Clinton's agenda is much more significant than a bid for Bernie Sanders supporters or the checking another progressive agenda box. Instead, the constitutional amendment Clinton calls for is badly needed, has overwhelming cross-partisan support in the country and is much closer to passage and ratification than many realize.


This law is one that many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike agree should be abolished.

Full article:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...itizens-united

Citizens United is known for its support of conservatives in politics. The group produced a television advertisement that reveals several legislative actions taken by John McCain, which aired on Fox News Channel. On October 2, 2006, in reaction to revelations of a cover-up of inappropriate communications between Congressman Mark Foley and teenage pages, Citizens United president David Bossie called on Dennis Hastert to resign over his role in covering up the scandal.

. . .In 2010, Move to Amend and Free Speech For People were launched to build support to amend the Constitution to declare: 1) Corporations are Not People; and 2) Money is Not Free Speech. In 2012 Ben Cohen founded Stamp Stampede a massive sustained protest that encourages people to rubber stamp messages such as "Not To Be Used For Bribing Politicians" on dollars. So far over 50,000 have joined the protest.

Full definition of Citizens United:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize..._(organization)

I LOVED that movie! Thanks for reminding me of it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IOpbj8ajZs

How about including all Unions from making any political contributions, or endorsing any political candidate?

I don't have a problem with groups endorsing a candidate. However, I'd be totally ok with keeping unions and professional PACs from contributing.

I'm curious who actually thinks Citizens United was a good idea and why.

I don't have a problem with groups endorsing a candidate. However, I'd be totally ok with keeping unions and professional PACs from contributing.

I'm curious who actually thinks Citizens United was a good idea and why. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

why it's a socialist democratic idea u dummy! didn't u know that?

I don't have a problem with groups endorsing a candidate. However, I'd be totally ok with keeping unions and professional PACs from contributing.

I'm curious who actually thinks Citizens United was a good idea and why. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think what killed the government's case was that the Feds were going to use the law to ban books with the name of a candidate in them.


Otherwise, I'd support overturning it. I think there should be instant disclosure of all donations.

I think what killed the government's case was that the Feds were going to use the law to ban books with the name of a candidate in them.


Otherwise, I'd support overturning it. I think there should be instant disclosure of all donations. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm curious who actually thinks Citizens United was a good idea and why. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

As a former card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I think it was a good idea. The Citizens United decision did not allow corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns. Rather, it allowed them to use the media (television, radio, internet, newspapers, etc.) to support or oppose political candidates. Very significantly, "corporations" includes 501(c)(4) organizations, like Citizens United, and Super PAC's.

You start down a slippery slope when you place restrictions on free speech, including political speech. Yssup, you don't like Donald Trump. Would you want to give a Trump administration the power to shut up organizations that oppose him? And I'd ask a similar question of those who hate and fear Hillary. The McCain-Feingold act, part of which was overturned by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision, could have been used as a lever by a leader in the mold of a Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin. One of the secrets of their "success", in clamping down on democracy and controlling their countries, was cracking down on political speech. If you criticized them or their party, you went to jail.

If, say, the Koch brothers wanted to start producing and paying for television time to run anti-Trump or anti-Clinton movies, I don't think the McCain-Feingold Act would prevent that, as long as they didn't pay for the movies through a "corporation", like a 501(c)(4) organization. Citizens United, which sued the Federal Election Commission, is a 501(c)(4) organization, as is, for example, American Crossroads, the organization run by Karl Rove. Practically, I don't think politicians believe they have a big problem with corporations like Exxon running advertisements. It's the 501(c)(4)'s that they're after, as well as Super PAC's.

One important feature of the 501(c)(4)'s is that they're not required to provide a list of their donors to the government. And, in my opinion (although probably not yours), that's a good thing. To give an example you might relate to, Planned Parenthood has a 501(c)(4). And, without making contributions to campaigns, it supports candidates who favor reproductive rights and opposes those who don't. What if some crazy gets a hold of their donor list and starts assassinating people who contributed to their 501(c)(4)? Some Republicans have similar concerns.

It might surprise you, but the Citizens United decision didn't help Republicans and hurt Democrats. In fact it was the other way around. It's certain that Citizens United favors Hillary, with her access to huge amounts of Super PAC money, while it hurts Trump. See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...reform/302758/, which among other things says "Democrats knew that campaign-finance reform would cripple their fundraising ability—but they backed the idea anyway, largely on principle. Republicans knew that it would give their party an even bigger edge than it already had—but they staunchly opposed it, also largely on principle."

I don't have a problem with groups endorsing a candidate. However, I'd be totally ok with keeping unions and professional PACs from contributing.

I'm curious who actually thinks Citizens United was a good idea and why. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The conservatives are the ones who passed it into law. I didn't know what it was until I started watching the DNC convention. Read the definition in the link below. It all started with media advertising on television and big money. Now, a lot of republicans, democrats and independents are against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize..._(organization)

It's using the media to brainwash the public via big money (in layman's terms).

The conservatives are the ones who passed it into law. I didn't know what it was until I started watching the DNC convention. Read the definition in the link below. It all started with media advertising on television and big money. Now, a lot of republicans, democrats and independents are against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize..._(organization)

It's using the media to brainwash the public via big money (in layman's terms). Originally Posted by SassySue

Dear Partisan Political Operative,

As you know, you are intentionally deluding people in order to promote your party. There is no such thing as a "Citizens United" bill. It's a catch phrase used by some in your party to promote its belief that anyone who disagrees with it should be shut up, free speech and freedom of the press be damned.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka McCain Feingold bill) was not passed by conservatives. It was passed by Democrats:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml

Parts were subsequently overturned by a Supreme Court decision.

The conservatives are the ones who passed it into law. I didn't know what it was until I started watching the DNC convention. Read the definition in the link below. It all started with media advertising on television and big money. Now, a lot of republicans, democrats and independents are against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize..._(organization)

It's using the media to brainwash the public via big money (in layman's terms). Originally Posted by SassySue

You are as dumb as a door knob. Like Tiny pointed out, conservatives did NOT pass the restrictions on campaign spending.

Amend the Constitution to overcome Citizens United? Congratulations to you and all progressives for FINALLY admitting that you are in favor of amending the Constitution to REDUCE the protections of the First Amendment. That is the ONLY effort I am aware of to actually REDUCE free speech by restricting the scope of the First Amendment.

That's disgusting.

why it's a socialist democratic idea u dummy! didn't u know that?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The definition states it's known for its support of conservatives in politics and got its start on Fox News (which I wholeheartedly believe since Fox News is biased in that direction and always has been).

I just found this information from the web. They are connected to the "The Koch Brothers". Why am I not surprised? No wonder everyone, including independents, want this law to get overturned. Get big money out of politics. And they call this democracy? Oh, please!

Corporations have lobbied for and received these protections for decades, despite our country’s founders intending no such thing. The Citizens United decision is just the latest in a long line of decisions granting Constitutional rights to corporations.


See this:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/

You are as dumb as a door knob. Like Tiny pointed out, conservatives did NOT pass the restrictions on campaign spending.

Amend the Constitution to overcome Citizens United? Congratulations to you and all progressives for FINALLY admitting that you are in favor of amending the Constitution to REDUCE the protections of the First Amendment. That is the ONLY effort I am aware of to actually REDUCE free speech by restricting the scope of the First Amendment.

That's disgusting. Originally Posted by Revenant

No, the Koch Brothers are disgusting by thinking they can continue to buy elections for the GOP and win over the American public by twisting facts.

Their definition of democracy is the total opposite of true democracy!

Here is their website and definition of Citizens United. By the way, "corporations are not people". Better get that through your head!

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton will have Supreme Court Justices elected under her watch and this unfair, undemocratic law will be overturned in a heartbeat. You betcha!!!

The definition states it's known for its support of conservatives in politics and got its start on Fox News (which I wholeheartedly believe since Fox News is biased in that direction and always has been).

I just found this information from the web. They are connected to the "The Koch Brothers". Why am I not surprised? No wonder everyone, including independents, want this law to get overturned. Get big money out of politics. And they call this democracy? Oh, please!

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/ Originally Posted by SassySue

Dear Partisan Political Operative,

Fox News is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative. Do you believe government should force Fox News off the air?

Do you think the Koch brothers should be denied the right to free political speech because they have money?

Your link completely ignores the complaint Citizens United filed in 2004 with the Federal Election Commission, against the corporate interests that advertised Michael Moore's move, Fahrenheit 9/11, within 60 days of the presidential election. This was the reason Citizens United attempted to advertise its movie, Hillary: The Movie, within 60 days of the election in 2008. And that was the basis for the case that was decided by the Supreme Court.

Do you believe Moore should have been prevented from advertising his movie before the election in 2004, when Bush was running?

No, the Koch Brothers are disgusting by thinking they can continue to buy elections for the GOP and win over the American public by twisting facts.

Their definition of democracy is the total opposite of true democracy!

Here is their website and definition of Citizens United. By the way, "corporations are not people". Better get that through your head!

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton will have Supreme Court Justices elected under her watch and this unfair, undemocratic law will be overturned in a heartbeat. You betcha!!! Originally Posted by SassySue

If you dim-retards had applied that standard to organizations such as the SEIU, the UAW, the teamsters, etc., there would have been no "Citizens United", Silly Suzy Simpleton.

Dear Partisan Political Operative,

Fox News is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative. Do you believe government should force Fox News off the air?

Do you think the Koch brothers should be denied the right to free political speech because they have money?

Your link completely ignores the complaint Citizens United filed in 2004 with the Federal Election Commission, against the corporate interests that advertised Michael Moore's move, Fahrenheit 9/11, within 60 days of the presidential election. This was the reason Citizens United attempted to advertise its movie, Hillary: The Movie, within 60 days of the election in 2008. And that was the basis for the case that was decided by the Supreme Court.

Do you believe Moore should have been prevented from advertising his movie before the election in 2004, when Bush was running? Originally Posted by Tiny

+1