Common Dreams reports
Hope for a measure of campaign finance reform fell apart on Thursday after an amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling failed to move forward in the Senate.
Senators voted 54-42 to end debate on the Democracy for All measure, as supporters called it, falling short of the necessary 60 votes needed.
"Senate Democrats want a government that works for all Americans—not just the richest few," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) after the vote. "Today, Senate Republicans clearly showed that they would rather sideline hardworking families in order to protect the Koch brothers and other radical interests that are working to fix our elections and buy our democracy."
The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), would have enabled Congress and state legislators to override the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that deregulated campaign spending, which critics said gave unlimited power to super PACs and wealthy donors.
The vote was along strict party lines.[googleusercontent cache] The two Independents voted with the Democrats; one Democrat did not vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @01:57PM
i.e., a change to the Bill of Rights, as Republicans helpfully pointed out. It seems largely theatrical, the Democrats' version of the GOP-led House voting every other week to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
I googled for this clarification b/c it didn't make sense that Congress would have the authority to override the Supreme Court. Well they could, if they could get a Constitutional amendment ratified, which also requires approval by 3/4 of the states.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @02:02PM
senate democrats don't even follow the rules of their own house let alone allow such measly inconvenience as the constitution get in their way
having said that, neocons should die in the same fire
america lost an opportunity for change when it ignored ron paul
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @02:59PM
What was the text of the amendment they wanted to add?
(Score: 3, Informative) by scruffybeard on Monday September 15 2014, @04:21PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 15 2014, @05:56PM
The proposal was for a Constitutional amendment i.e., a change to the Bill of Rights, as Republicans helpfully pointed out.
I hope the Republican's did not point that out as it would display their ignorance of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 ammendments only.
I googled for this clarification b/c it didn't make sense that Congress would have the authority to override the Supreme Court.
Since the decision was based on the Court's interpretation of the Constitution the only way for Congress to properly override it is by ammending the Constitution.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 15 2014, @02:02PM
It's just as well that it was killed, it was the wrong way to solve the situation. The method they were using would have left it entirely up to them who was an evil special interest and who was just a collection of people exercising their constitutional rights. Who got to speak and how much would have been instantly politicized.
The proper way to do it is to allow only individual funding, no groups of any kind, and make it unlimited. "But the rich will have way too much say blah blah blah blah!" There are a shitload more of us than there are of the rich. They still only get one vote no matter how much they spend and they have just as much right to spend their money how they see fit as Joe Working Stiff does.
Or are we saying that the American public are collectively too stupid to not be swayed by advertising? If that's the case, then they're too bloody stupid to be voting in the first place and we should just get ourselves an Emperor and call it done.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @02:07PM
take away power of government and the wealthy will have nothing to buy... problem solved
not saying that there should be no government, but when you create a marketplace, people are gunna go shopping
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Alfred on Monday September 15 2014, @02:55PM
As long as people and money exist there will be things bought and sold.
As long as people are in government it will be possible to buy government.
If you make government less like a super walmart and more like a corner store you will have less being bought by virtue of their being less to sell.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday September 15 2014, @08:56PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Monday September 15 2014, @02:32PM
I feel there are not "more of us than there are rich". The problem with wealth it is not linear. Things become possible at certain thresholds...
But on the other point here's a whacky idea.
Perhaps only allowing contributions from citizens (taxpayers!!!) but NOT corporations. Set the limit to be a %age of the 5 year average of the American income. e.g if average is $28,000 say %12 $3500 per citizen. Hey, perhaps use the tax deduction as the limit? If you are a special interest, get your fellow citizens to contribute.
It would be illegal for any politician to receive contributions from anyone else except citizens, including themselves -although again we could use the average as the limit.They can spend 10x. Yes, being rich should not mean you can run, in the same way being poor means you can't.
It would be illegal for corporations to lobby in private in anyway whatsoever.
However, it would be totally legal for corporations to run public lobbying via public media. Paying people to stand with signs and boards on the sidewalk. TV ads. Internet channels. Making TV shows with product placement (like Fox News, but less drool)
The point is being a politician should be the totally boring job it is for most of the governments workers. This would naturally attract few attention seekers...
And how about mandatory term limits using a sliding scale...? need majority 1st election, 10% majority second, 20% third...etc.. you get the idea.
Finally, how about legally binding polices? An industry in professional policy crafting might spring into life, rather than the current backroom lobbying.
But on the whole I agree. Better we have the right system rather than yet another patch. The system is already creaking because of all the patches they have put on it...!
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday September 15 2014, @04:44PM
Some interesting ideas. I am not a fan of term limits however. All it does is turn over power to special interests and professional staffers who know their away around. If a congressman has been around for a while, they get time to learn their job and the intricacies of some policy area.
Corporations should not be allowed to contribute in elections. Let the shareholders choose to put money to their financial cause. I am not a fan of spending limits of individuals. There are problems against liberty with that position, I believe. Besides, the problems associated with no spending limits goes away if we decrease the wealth gap.
If more people have the majority of money, political power is more spread out. Political power follows the money, and majority of people must have the majority of money. e.g. minimum, the top 10.0% cannot have more that 50% of the nation's wealth.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 15 2014, @09:46PM
What about the typical situation of a corporation that is owned by citizens/taxpayers? Really, this sort of law is just to block the most common mechanics of organizing people. I have yet to see anything proposed that would improve on the current situation (this includes your talk of term limits and "legally binding policies").
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday September 15 2014, @03:59PM
Your understanding of the problem is woefully inadequate.
Money is not speech. Even if it was, how can you not see a problem with most citizens only having access to between zero and a few thousand units of "speech" while a few wealthy elite individuals _each_ have access to BILLIONS of units of "speech"? There would need to be billions of us all working in total unison to even _begin_ to balance the ultra-wealthy in unlimited campaign spending.
Corporations are not people, or citizens, and should not be participating in or influencing our democracy in any way. Period.
Finally, this is not really about the money spent on advertising, although such things can slightly influence close races. Just because every citizen may not be a well-informed genius doesn't mean they don't all deserve democracy. No, this is about a far more insidious problem, such as having a group of Republican candidates all fly to Las Vegas to have a private audition in front a small handful of the wealthiest conservatives in the country (this actually happened). This is about politicians being basically owned by special interests because 98% of their campaign funding came from just a few ultra-wealthy donors. The rest of us simply cannot compete monetarily with the ultra-wealthy.
Seriously, wake up and smell the megabucks. Citizens United is one of the worst things that has ever happened to our democracy, and allowing unlimited individual spending will just make it even worse. We all may have exactly one vote, rich and poor alike, but we only vote for which politician we think is least worst. If every politician representing us in Congress ends up owned by special interests because the rest of us only collectively contribute 2% of their total campaign funds, your vote ends up meaning exactly jack squat as far as having a functioning democracy is concerned.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2, Interesting) by WillAdams on Monday September 15 2014, @03:59PM
My solution for this would be to have the following requirements:
- individual contributions are capped at 20 x current minimum wage
- all contributions must be done as a hand-written check drawable on an account held by a registered U.S. voter or as a U.S. Postal service money order
- each contribution must be individually mailed --- if delivered in person, no more than 1 contribution may be accepted from a voter per business day
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 15 2014, @02:21PM
"The vote was along strict party lines."
Sounds like a bad law. Doesn't mean it is a bad law, just sounds like it.
We'll apply all kinds of limits all of which sound awesome and american and apple pie, oh but in a little footnote on page 23523 it only applies to one political party, which unsurprisingly responded by tanking it.
A good law would have been OK.
This might be intentional gamesmanship via cooperation. We'd like to keep our little pretend two party system to ourselves, so we'll agree that you'll be the bad cop and we'll be the good cop and whoops just bad luck the only law proposed would accidentally inadvertently screw us over so too bad that a party lines vote results and neither side really takes the blame it was all an accident. Its not like congresses popularity could get any lower so its pretty safe, and the peasants can eat cake for all we care.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday September 15 2014, @04:32PM
Why not just read it for yourself [gpo.gov], rather than making assumptions about what's in it? It's less than 3 pages long (Herman Cain would be proud). Since it's a proposed constitutional amendment rather than a law, it would require 2/3 of the House and 38 states in order to become anything binding.
Also, bipartisan laws are in no way necessarily better than partisan laws: For example, stopping Wikileaks was a bipartisan effort. So was starting the Iraq War.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @06:06PM
It seems reasonable on the face of it. But the more I think about this the more I am glad it was voted down.
One thing I see that is really wrong with it is the fox is in charge of the chicken coop as it were. Congress/senate are the ones with the money issues. They also get to decide what is right. The part about states being involved is meaningless seems like a good idea but in practice would probably not do anything. We need another group to decide it. A group that is impartial to it. Maybe instead of congress deciding we pull a random sampling of people and they get to decide what is 'reasonable'? It is then revisited every 5-10 years. We need people deciding who have not been influenced. Make it like jury duty. Putting congress in charge of this I think opens it up for massive abuse. Which would make it just as ineffective as it is now. We just ended up with thousands of 'grass roots' orgs that are really fronts for other orgs.
To be truthful it only bandaids what is there. The real issue is not even 2 billion spent on elections. The real issue is the influence of money after and during their day to day job of voting. You could follow the rules perfectly yet still come out of that job making millions. We need to remove the reasons money has power over these people not just limit the amount of crack... uh money ... they get.
"Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press"
This bit scares me actually. First they left out the rest of the 1st amendment (which they should have just referenced). They basically took the teeth out of it anyway as that is what the whole ruling was about limiting free speech. Also what about the other amendments? You could write a bill that says if a man owns a gun he can only contribute 1 dollar. See perfectly legal. This has the massive power to limit your political rivals. It could be used to ensure people must contribute say 1% of your gross income. As the congress would have the power to regulate it.
This is a dangerous tool. I am glad they do not have. Think about giving this to the biggest greediest prick you know. Then think how would they use this to screw you and your family over.
Being an amendment I would error on the side of caution and say no for now and let everyone debate it for awhile. Not jam it thru as fast as we can. It should be a well thought out thing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday September 15 2014, @06:36PM
The more you read it the more you understand that it is a stupid and useless proposal.
To fix graft and corruption, the proposal is to turn the governance of campaign contributions and spending over to ... CONGRESS.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that?.
Like most posters above, I believe we will never gain control of this process unless and until we get corporations out of campaign finance, AS WELL AS political issue advertising. But permanently enshrining the fox as guardian of the hen house is just jackass stupid.
Those who think this is a good idea need to ask yourselfs if you would be so willing to sign on to this nonsense if the sponsorship was from the Republicans instead of the Democrats. If the answer is no, you're a hypocrite. If the answer is yes, you are simply naive.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday September 15 2014, @07:15PM
First off, the primary person who's been pushing this is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but lifelong independent Bernie Sanders.
So what, precisely, is the mechanism you propose to do that? If it's not the government, what entity can and should be doing that? And if it is the government, what sort of body do you create that doesn't leave the fox guarding the henhouse?
My view is that putting it in the hands of Congress would be a slight improvement: Right now, it is illegal in the US for anyone to do anything to address the problems you and I agree are problems. With Congress, I'd expect mediocre-at-best results, but in this case mediocre-at-best results are better than no results at all.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 15 2014, @08:04PM
There are already regulatory bodies that deal with campaign finance issues, as well as the courts.
Admittedly many of these were created by congress or state legislators, and admittedly some of them have been effective. Not as effective as they could be, but probably as effective as congress will EVER let them be.
States do a better job at this than the feds.
As for corporate donations and funding, I think we can stop that with tax law. Simply make corporation campaign contributions taxable to the contributor at 300%. (For every dollar the corporation contributes, they must add $3 dollars to their tax bill AFTER all deductions). Do I hear $5? %10? Sliding scale?
Call it the Societal Impact Nullification Tax. An attempt to nullify the negative effects that corporations have on society by manipulation of the election process.
Also mandate REAL TIME contribution accounting posted on State Operated web sites that each candidate must post names and amounts of each donation before they can spend it or bank it.
We probably can't control what people do with their own money, they can choose to leave suitcases of 100 dollar bills on the door step of candidates, but we should be able to control how candidates accept the money and spend it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @02:21PM
...points above notwithstanding, something like this is the way you can fix your democracy, USA. You should be fighting for this above all things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @05:35PM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18565-reid-pushes-senate-resolution-that-would-abridge-free-speech [thenewamerican.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @07:54PM
The John Birch Society lives! Free speech my ass. BTW, "Society"? Are John Birchers socialists?