Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Sen. Tom Udall introduces Constitutional amendment re: campaign financing

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 5:28 p.m. EST by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm not sure that is the best wording for an amendment, but I am very glad to see this introduced.




Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by bruellc (12) from Newark, NJ 12 years ago

This is the effort that we all need to focus on!
We need to get the money out of the political system! We need to all be screaming this in the streets! Capitalism vs. socialism/communism, that whole argument is a total distraction and is just fodder for those that don't really understand or who want to muddy the waters. It's going to be tough to make an amendment happen. It's only the "street" (and I don't mean Wall Street), that's going to make it happen. FOCUS, baby, FOCUS!

[-] 3 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

now hopefully it isn't 2,000 pages long.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 12 years ago

It is very brief.


It troubles me that the proposed amendment only talks about giving Congress the power to regulate financing. It doesn't state that the corporations are not people and that money is not speech. IMO, those are the key issues.

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 12 years ago

It should be brief. Does the Sixteenth Amendment set tax rates?

As for your other concerns, an actual amendment to the constitution supersedes previous case law.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

maybe since that has been decided they're trying a new route.

[-] 3 points by WatTyler (263) 12 years ago

The motivation of the senators involved could be questioned. And the phrase “A snowballs chance in hell!” comes to mind. But it’s the right thing to do anyway. Let’s make some noise!

[-] 3 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

Whats sad is that a post and article like this goes un noticed and is drowned out by people posting and discussing their own selfish agenda. This is a couple senators attempting to do exactly what the OWS protests are asking for... Yet no one cares because it doesn't directly effect their own personal interests.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 12 years ago


[-] 3 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 12 years ago

It's a start - and I think speaks to the impact of OWS.

[-] 3 points by maynard123 (54) 12 years ago

Thanks for posting that.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 12 years ago

Thanx for the info. I can't see congress separating themselves from money but that's exactly what needs to be done. Keep up the pressure OWS!!!

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

It is truly sad how much more compelling the flaming troll posts (apparently) are than something of true import. It speaks volumes about our society IMO. "Reality" TV beats PBS once again.

[-] 0 points by RicoSuave (218) 12 years ago

This will not keep a single cent out of politics.

The truth is, the Democrats don't want to take money out of politics. What they are pissed about is the party mechanism doesn't control the bulk of money any more.

In years past, the money went to candidates and the party National Committee. That is not the case any more. Much political money is spent through groups and PAC's and SuperPACs.

They don't want money out of politics. They want more control over the large overall pot of political money.

That is why the amendment is worded the way it is.

It is a ruse people. They are insulting you.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 12 years ago

I am skeptical as well. The proposed amendment is an improvement over Citizens United, but doesn't go nearly far enough IMO.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 12 years ago

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. Has the looks of a paper tiger.