Does this amendment to remove corporate bribery from government stand a chance?

Politicians are in the corporation's pockets.
I'm pretty sure something like this will never get done unless we circumvent the 3/4th majority system in which case we'll set a dangerous precedent that could spell trouble in the future.
Its paradoxical.

Only the supreme court could have prevented this type of corporate-dominated society and they obviously failed at that with the Citizens United ruling.
In the future it will be possible to override that ruling, but not with the justices we have now.

 

It's been a problem as long as currency & law has co-existed.

 

It would be awesome, it would be great for the country, it would help level the playing field, and it will never pass.

 

^^one can hope

 

Don't set yourself up for disappointment.

 

Signed

 

First, even if you're posting on here, rules against political stuff in the sig, blah blah blah.

Now, let's go over what's been proposed.

No one. No one at all can contribute for campaigns? How the heck is this going to work?

Define this. What is an "independent political expenditure"? I and a few friends decide to create a series of pamphlets arguing that since Obama is an atheist Communist Muslim who wasn't really born in America, he should not be elected President. We spend money to do so. Is that an "independent political expenditure?"

 

I don't know whether to be more sad about the fact that some people are holding out hope for this, or about how poorly these amendments are drafted. I can think of a few ways to circumvent these just off the top of my head.

I think given the harsh criteria for passing such an amendment, it would be best served with a target date 4 years from now so that people get a chance to get educated via localized road shows and presentations and they can hash out which officials are going to screw them/not, and how to deal with them.

You can't bar individuals from giving them money or spending money, but surely you can bar them from accepting money as a condition for entering the race?

On a lighter note, I say go for a survivor format. All the money goes into a large pool, and more money up for grabs the more voters you get. This will make them cater to voters more and incentivize increased voter turnout. First round is 8 candidates, then 4 get voted off for round 2, and another 2 get voted off for the final round 3. The format is Q&A, and all questions must be approved by at least 25% of voters. All rounds will be on public holidays. All candidates will have to make a submission prior to Round 1 answering a pre-designed questionnaire approved by voters, and anyone who conflicts with their questionnaire twice is automatically booted. Tax returns, birth certificates and criminal records go public. Winner is not allowed to work for money again, will receive compensation in the form of $0.005 annual tax from each voter.

Fun stuff. What's the worst that can happen?

 

The left is obsessed with controlling and curtailing political speech they don't like. The excitement in this thread is palpable, all these ideas for laws to shut people up. Lots of "shall not, cannot, will not".

The right never tries to shut anyone up. More speech is never a bad thing.

Shows what little faith the left has in the average voter to be persuaded by their ideas. They're afraid of competition in the realm of political speech.

Of course, unions are exempt, as are media entities (which are nothing more than corporate funded speech outlets). Media corporations and unions get all the speech power, everyone else has to shut up.

 

An amendment that limits what a person can do with the money they earned? Awesome!


George Mason was right.

 

Speech cannot be rationed, and it's not permitted by the 1st Amendment

 

So, if the New York Times writes an editorial on how oil fracking is bad, that's protected speech. But if Exxon attempts to respond and argue that oil fracking won't harm the environment, that's not protected speech and the government can shut it down.

And I'd also point out that under your rule, universities would not be protected by the First Amendment.

Define this. As far as I'm concerned, under these guidelines, my aforementioned pamphlet which I used money to make would not be considered speech and thus is not guaranteed of protection.

There is no way you can reliably regulate this. Off the top of my head, I can think of five ways which I could contribute money to ignore this. Furthermore, once again I cite the pamphlet example. I spend 251 dollars to make a pamphlet that explains how Obama is an atheist communist muslim. Did I break the law?

So, the Federal and state governments will determine which candidates are viable and which ones aren't. Nope. Definitely won't be abused.

Oh, good. The Federal government will now regulate television and radio stations and make sure that their content is politically acceptable. What could POSSIBLY go wrong with this idea?
Furthermore, why only television and radio stations?

 

Pure rage, no substance.

Why did Occupy WS fail again?

 

The "freedom of speech" of the elite infringe upon the rights of the freedom of speech of the poor. If you can buy and control politics with just money then that is infringing upon the rights of 90% of Americans that can't do the same.

Having money should not give you a free pass to do anything you want, and certainly does not give you the right to infringe the rights of others.

 

Fixed

 

Wrong. There is no right to EQUAL speech at all. Only a right to free speech. Consequently, there is no infringing. After all, poor people can participate in the political process, and they can band together and do stuff, such as what occurred in 2008 with Obama.

Now, is one rich person going to have more influence than one poor person? Yes. But what people tend to forget is that no matter what rules or regulations are put into place, since human beings are NOT equal to one another, a rich person will always have more influence than a poor person in any system of governance. There is no way to get around this. In fact, most laws that attempt to get around this fact of reality in the end hurt the poor far more than the rich, because the rich have other advantages which poor people don't which have nothing to do with campaign contributions or even money.

After all, which is better. A system where the rich have a voice of 100, and the poor have 1? Or a system where the rich have a voice of 10, but the poor have 0? I take the former.