🚨 BREAKING: Congress just reintroduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. 🚨
(twitter.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
Comments (57)
sorted by:
Citizens United is kind of a big deal for the Bernie Sanders-style Democrats, which have been putting up more of a fight every election.
This feels like an olive branch to them coming up on midterms from establishment Democrats. It’s more than likely just ceremony: the chances of this passing as a Constitutional Amendment seem pretty slim.
Still a confusing move since the bernie-brohs were hugely redpilled 6 years back.
Well, redpilled in despising Clinton and the Democratic establishment, yes. But that doesn’t mean they’re on Team Trump.
I imagine Schiff is just trying to keep up Democratic participation for midterms, because without Trump in office and with so much other shit going on in the world, a lot of Democrats are understandably worried that people will be lulled into taking a break from voting and civic shit for an election cycle. 2020 was exhausting for everyone and Biden isn’t exactly wowing anyone right now.
Some Bernie bros are here. Myself as a case in point. I was back then thanks to college indoctrination and before I started paying attention and waking up.
What are the implications of potentially overturning "Citizens United", Mr. Random ogre?
Boy oh boy.
What I’d like to say is that politics becomes cleaner and less manipulatable by big money. We stop believing nonsense like there only being two viable political positions. We stop being convinced there is more that differs between us than is similar. Politicians are only funded fairly by people, not corporations, and we feel more confident that our elections are the result of democratic values than the values of whoever can afford to buy a Senator.
In reality, I expect that any political victory brings new problems. It won’t go as far as I want or someone will figure out a new way around it. There will be some unforeseen hitch that cascades into a some new political crisis, as does every major political movement.
That tends to be another area where I differ from most Q people. I don’t see most battles as something that can be won. You beat one evil, one political opponent, one Cabal, and something else will always pop up. There has never been a hope of a total victory in that fight.
And frankly, I don’t think there is supposed to be. We are judged by our commitment to fighting for the right thing, not our ability to secure victory in that fight. As long as I keep trying to figure out what the right thing is and fighting for it, then I’m doing all I can do.
I don't think overturning CU would do everything I hope it would do, nor would any benefits last for the entirety of some million-year reign of the American empire. But it might make things better for right now, and until I see a better solution, I’ll fight for this one and deal with any resulting problems as they come up.
Well then we know it's bullshit.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Dems are trying to stop private groups from advertising against a candidate before an election.
Would this mean team Trump cant put out advertising close to midterms?
It sounds to me like a play to allow the govt. to infringe on the freedom of speech of citizens by selectively allowing or denying individuals the opportunity to buy political advertising.
TL;DR The democrats want the govt. to help hide their crimes.
All the swamp rules will be changed or eliminated. There’s a bunch of them. Old guard sweat is being sniffed everywhere. Smell it?
smells like Sulphur and Patchouli..
.. . Username checks out. 😁
you would know, Shmelly. Judging from your name.
*slowly smells finger
Now stop it I’m in tears reading this chain of events
If I remember correctly, Citizens United is what allowed PACs to spend tons of money indirectly for a campaign. When it passed I was still a liberal, and I remember all the shows extremely upset about this because they said it would help the rich bad republicans.
Looking back now, I believe it was a bait and switch. It was done to help the Cabal (both Dems and Rinos) with rich sponsors. They just made it sound like they didnt like it.
I am pretty sure that liberals will be extremely happy to overturn this - but personally I feel this is a win for us. We do not want Companies spending tons of money to be categorised as "Free Speech", which is what the lawsuit did.
We must have been lowercase liberals about that same timeframe... Good analysis, though I'm not qualified to speak about it with any expertise. 👍
Not a biologist, huh?
I agree! I think it’s ludicrous to allow companies to spend tons of money on campaigns. I also have a huge problem w/ lobbyists and really the way elections are funded in general but that’s a huge topic to get into. My only question with all of this going on right now is, doesn’t Trump have a PAC and hasn’t that PAC raised more money than the Reps and Dems? Just seems “coincidental” that they’re trying to pass this amendment now. I don’t trust them and they always have some ulterior motive to whatever they’re doing. 🙄
It's called projectionism.
I stopped reading at constitutional amendment. Will never happen.
Agree, an amendment requires a certain # of votes to pass so this won’t happen.
So does elections, but we all see how that went...
Went exactly like it was supposed to
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the relationship between campaign finance and free speech. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
Something tells me this is not really about Citizen United, but rather some other ominous change they want to add to constitutional amendment. I know that Liberals and Libertatians are extremely polarised against Citizens United, and using it as ane excuse is a great way to keep them in blind rage while push through something else.
I think its because Trump is out fundraising them bigtime, so now this law isnt beneficial to the swamp.
They seriously have no principles or care for the wider consequences of ANYTHING as long as it helps them RIGHT NOW.
You’re probably right and I’m sure in their minds they just think they change it again when it will benefit them more at another time to reverse it. They always have an ulterior motive to whatever they’re doing. Evil swine the lot of them!
Makes sense.
Here's the argument: https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/
Free speech, including political speech, is a right clearly guaranteed by the first amendment. The document specifies no limitations on how much speech or what kind of speech that is. There is no "political speech", "no hate speech", etc. The federal government can't limit speech of people or of organizations of people simply because they have money and wish to spend it to speak on a political topic.
I don't think we want to be in a country where the government gives you an allocation of free speech to use and after that, you can't voice your opinion on a political topic through modern mass media anymore.
if a dem is supporting, it's evil. if a dem is against, it is beneficial for the people FORMULA FOR EVERYTHING
Lol! Yup! The answer key to EVERYTHING! 😂
The Constitution is "We The People", not "We The Corporations". I always felt while I was peering down the rabbit hole, the rulings that corporations have free speech was a result that "We The People" have been made into individual corporations by our CAPITAL LETTERS NAME and birth certificate/SSN number. By ruling against large business corporation free speech it would then render the individuals corporation name free speech null and void.
Yeah, being for anything that takes power away from corporations is probably a safe way to go, at least on initial consideration.
https://americannationalmilitia.com/the-organic-act-of-1871-with-notes/
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=454
Theory: they don't need Citizens United if they have "elections" in the bag. It's lost its usefulness to the commies.
Good, in my opinion.
But as a Constitutional amendment? This is almost certain to fail. There is rarely bipartisan support on something that is so hard to undo.
Republicans can kill this. All they have to do is insist that if corporations (large groups of people sharing a similar interest) are not people and therefore cannot donate money to political campaigns, then unions (large groups of people sharing a similar interest), NGOs, and private charities also all be similarly constrained.
This will absolutely gut the Democrat dark money funnel. They'll back off that quick, fast, and in a big, damn hurry.
Maybe it's all theater? It's the best they can do to pretend they're fighting for the everyman.
How could it be enforced? Big money organized donors will just find loopholes to skirt around the rules.
As an example, what would stop a corporation from incentivizing it's employees to "support" candidate X, and give said employees bonuses to further encourage "support?"
I’m okay with all that money going away.
Taking that away is the first step to federalizing elections. Right now, it's private, corporate money at stake. Next, it'll be private citizen donations. After that, ALL the candidates will have to be financially vetted by [them] thru the central banks.
But, this will never pass the Senate. And I doubt it'll pass in the House, too.
If anything, I think it's an attempt by [them] to sniff out who the "true believers" are.
Remember, [their] goal is not only to move global seat of power to China, but to move each and every nation to the Commie way. In order to fully enslave the world you have to fully enslave it's leadership, and the only way to do that is to make every candidate solely beholden to whoever controls the money supply.
This will
I recall an article on here recently saying Trump has more money than all the political parties combined in a super pac. Tailoring rules to try and beat Trump. Still wont work
So they’re going to make legislation that doesn’t allow organizations to make political donations?
They are going to make it so non-Democrat organizations can’t donate.
That sounds about right
Without Citizens United, the voice of the MSM will be even more dominant.
Dem=opposite of good for people=traitor
please be true, please be true
ok
please be true
Why is Schiff sponsoring this
Exactly! This is the only question I have!
Bernie, I suspect, was paid to concede to HRC, to not cut the votes. They were sure she would win.