Congress Must Respond (Possibly With a Constitutional Amendment)

[berni_mccoy]

Congress must respond to the Supreme Court ruling that corporations may give unlimited resources to campaign either for or against a candidate in a Federal Election. While corporations are unlimited in what they can give, the Supreme Court did not address limits on individuals, currently capped at $2300 per cycle.

If necessary, Congress should draft a Constitutional Amendment to declare that Corporations can give NO RESOURCES to Federal Election Campaigns and in fact are not entitled to the same rights as Citizens. The Amendment should be called the Anti-Corruption Act, designed to prevent the corruption of Federally Elected officials from the financial wealth of corporations. Without this amendment, Federally Elected Officials will have their very offices threatened for simply taking action on behalf of the people against the special interests of even one wealthy corporation.

[ParkieDem]

1. You're interpreting the decision incorrectly.

It's not that corporations can give to candidates without limits, and individuals are capped at $2300. Corporations are still banned from giving money directly to candidates.

The Citizens United decision struck down the provisions of McCain-Feingold that prohibit non-candidate sponsored ads in the 60 days prior to an election. So, individuals and corporations -- who were prohibited from running such ads -- can now run these ads during the 60 day time frame.

[peacebird]

4. nice diversion. It means corps can fund ads to push their preferred view til election day

It means corps can now fund position ads into the final days of any campaign.
Individual people rarely have the money to finance ads - period.

This is NOT good for democracy.

[Codeine]

2. I'd be shocked to see enough states ratify that.

Sadly, the monetary pressures on state houses would be huge.

[scheming daemons]

3. Good luck getting 67 senators.... you'll be lucky to find two Republicans

...

[MiniMe]

5. And then get 2/3 of the states

It will be just like people on Medicare arguing against Government sponsored insurance.