SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.