Lady Liberty was arrested on Monday afternoon. That is, a protester dressed up as the New York icon was taken into police custody, along with hundreds of other protesters who refused to leave the US Capitol steps on Monday until Congress agrees to pass campaign finance reform. The protesters were in Washington, DC on Monday as part of Democracy Spring, a loosely organized protest movement that began as a 10-day walk from Philadelphia to the nation's capital, and which is now attracting hundreds of campaign finance advocates to sit-in at the Capitol building over the next week. The group is demanding that Congress "take immediate action" to create a viable small-dollar public funding system for federal elections, and is calling for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's controversial 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissionin 2009, which lifted restrictions on corporate money in politics. A US Capitol Police officer estimated that more than 500 people were present at Monday's protest by the afternoon, but said that many more — he specify a number — had already been arrested for refusing to leave the Capitol steps. Hundreds Arrested at US Capitol During 'Democracy Spring' Campaign Finance Protests | VICE News
I don't know about the civil disobedience part, although it did get them in the news, but I think that their positions on campaign finance reform are very sound.
Public funding of elections literally is the government taking our money by force and giving it to people who don't actually represent us. That being said, individuals shouldn't have arbitrary contribution limits either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they further limited the First Amendment and prohibited private donations to political campaigns publicity hounds like Trump would be the major voices we'd hear before elections. What would we do then? Pass laws against public speaking?
Yup slippery slope. Because a corporation/banking institution/Super-PAC equates to your average joe citizen. How anybody thinks those things are similar is exactly why politics has turned into a worse shit show then it already was.
Eliminate private donations and that leaves billionaires buying how much airtime they wish. Like Trump. It also allows those populist getting huge amounts of free publicity by feeding hatred to the masses free reign. Like Trump. If there's going to be campaign reform at least do something that addresses the perceived problem.
God that is the worst idea I can think of. Why the fuck should I subsidize politicians' campaign efforts? Citizens United v. FEC is the subject of tons of disinformation which I am saddened to see VICE contributing to, and as far as I am concerned, it is lying by omission. Citizens United was about a corporation that wanted to air an ad for a documentary that was critical of Hillary. But it was illegal to do so within 80 days of the election, something that was determined to have violated the first amendment. Why should it be that 81 days before an election people can criticize Hillary but 79 days before it's a crime? Citizens United did not establish that corporations are people. The concept of legal/juridical personhood for corporations predates the existence of this country. It's what allows corporations to be sued in court. If there were no corporate personhood then you would have to bring legal action against the stockholders. That means any Joe Schmoe with stocks or private pensions could have charges brought against them for the crimes of others. That would be unjust. It also didn't establish that money is speech. It's still illegal for corporations to give money directly to campaigns or coordinate their efforts with campaigns. If me and my brother wanted to start Bernie For President, LLC and raise money for an advertisement critical of Donald Trump, then it is my right to do that under the First Amendment. For it to be a crime for my corporation to raise money and air an ad critical of Donald Trump within 80 days of the election, that is anti-free speech. Agree or disagree? TL;DR, while corporations are not living, breathing human beings, it is organized by living, breathing humans, and they don't suddenly lose their free speech rights once they organize as a corporation. Just utterly disappointed at the disinfo being spread around....
So you agree with Citizen's United and the disgusting amount of money in politics? Maybe two separate issues at its core, but still.
I agree with the court's decision which stipulated that it was a clear violation of the first amendment to make it illegal for an organized group of people to criticize Hillary Clinton within 80 days of the election. That has nothing to do with dirty money and politics, and my post clearly explains why. "But still", what? You're comparing apples to pick up trucks. It's been my position for several years that special interests and big money corrupt politics big time, and no I don't "agree" with it. The amount of disinformation being spread around about the court decision has made people think things that are simply false.
It simply fostered a corrupt environment for political figures to raise unlimited money through super pacs,, the law might indeed be just if anything was enforced but every politician coordinates with the super packs, and citizens united is what turned a once great democracy into an oligarchy, even right wing politicians agree money in politics is the single problem facing congress and it's ability to effectively govern for the people, but if you support citizens United, there's not much I can say other than you simply fail to see the political system as it is. CORRUPT Sent from my iPad using Grasscity Forum mobile app
That's just wrong, the decision addressed a corporation that wanted to air an ad within 80 days of the election. The United States was bought and sold decades before Citizens United ever came into the picture. You have no idea what the Citizens United decision was actually about, clearly. The system is so corrupted that it doesn't matter if you tried to get money out of politics, the ruling class owns this joint and always will. Give me a break with this nonsense. No one denies political corruption, let alone myself.
Democracy is a horrible system of government a Constitutional Republic is a little less so but has still proven to be a failure. Individual rights is the key collectivism just leads to collective failure.
How would this be implemented on a grand scale? or even just a city or even a single city block? And how would this be guaranteed? To me its a kin to saying we don't need guns and we need to be able to cohabitate our environment peacefully, because guns lead to people being shot. While yeah it would be nice to live in a world where people inherently understood that each human being is sovereign and people adhered to NAP, the real world aint like that. People only seem to respond to power, if people could be reasoned with, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But to me, your initial premise that individual rights is the key, seems to hinge on people's ability to reason. edit: I hope I dont come off as confrontational. Also whats up man? havent seen you in these parts in a while, I hope your studies are going great.
But I don't want to eliminate private individual donations. Just the donations from big businesses and banks. talk about arguing in a loop.
There is no point in arguing with someone who supports citizens United I know exactly what the original case was about and it's not the the point. The unintended consequences of citizens United has killed ant type of real democracy. Sent from my iPad using Grasscity Forum mobile app