Obama: Consider amending constitution to undo court ruling on political spending

 

TAMPA, Fla. -- President Barack Obama suggested he would support beginning an effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to undo a Supreme Court decision that gave way to the rise of so-called "Super PACs."

In a chat on the social media website Reddit, the president told readers that he would back an amendment to counteract the impact of the court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, a 2010 decision that did away with limits on corporate and labor spending in elections.

"Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it)," the president wrote. "Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change."

The president said he still supports the Disclose Act, which would force greater transparency from outside spending groups in disclosing their sources of funding. Obama also emphasized his support for banning lobbyists from the practice of "bundling," or raising large sums of contribution from a group of donors.

The 2012 campaign has seen an unprecedented influx of political spending due to the rise of super PACs, which are able to raise and spend unlimited sums on electioneering. Many of those groups also have twin nonprofit arms, which are able to raise and spend millions on "issue advocacy" without having to disclose its funding source.

Both Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, have super PACs spending on their behalf this cycle. Obama reluctantly endorsed his, Priorities USA Action, after having initially opposed the groups;

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2

You GO Mr. President!!!

I've been waiting to hear this from you!

I think it is something BOTH sides can agree upon!

Are elections should NOT be for sale to the secret highest bidder & foreign $$$

Although, given how cantankerous the RWNJ's are these days... maybe not...

  • 24 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:20 PM EDT

Next up freedom of speech

  • 11 votes
#1.1 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:22 PM EDT

Next up freedom of speech

...because money = speech?

...and you think I'm the delusional one?

  • 16 votes
#1.2 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:26 PM EDT

no money = money spend or save

yeah i do think you are

  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:30 PM EDT

You seem to have totally missed the point about what the Citizens United decision means.

...but I guess you're cool with everyone throwing around unlimited sums of cash in elections, right?

If you want to really have some fun, perhaps you should do some study on how Citizens United contradicts Caperton v Massey.

  • 15 votes
#1.4 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:41 PM EDT

Next up freedom of speech

Caesar - how do you equate "Citizen's United" with "Freedom of Speech"? If CU was pushed by the DEMS, you'd be screaming so loud that your head would explode....

  • 12 votes
#1.5 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:41 PM EDT

This does not surprise me a bit. King Obama rules the day.

Wake up Folks!

  • 12 votes
#1.6 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:43 PM EDT

Exactly so, Mr. President.

Under the right wing SCOTUS Citizens' United regime:

"Small Government" means a small group of Adelson & superwealthy transnational friends -- selecting the government they want at the expense of the 99%.

If ANY Norquistian 1%-er President like Romney gets the chance, you can wave bye bye to Democracy.

To think otherwise, is just naive.

  • 12 votes
#1.7 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:44 PM EDT

We need to bring back "McCain/Feingold"!!!!!!!

  • 7 votes
#1.8 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:46 PM EDT

This does not surprise me a bit. King Obama rules the day.

Yes! My God, how DARE the President suggest an amendment to the Constitution!

Sic semper tyrannis!!!

  • 8 votes
#1.9 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:52 PM EDT

[Obama: Consider amending constitution to undo court ruling on political spending]

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine while you're at it. Then we can all watch and cheer as guys like Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck, as well as Fox "news" shrivel up and blow away.

  • 12 votes
#1.10 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:52 PM EDT

This will be a really good move. I hope we start talking about it...

Elections should not be bought and paid for by the highest bidder (probably even foreign);

I don't see how so called "conservatives" can't see that the citizen's united decision has eroded the freedom and power of the ordinary American.

America has always been by American's and for American's first - but now anyone could by the election - ala Adelson, and who ever else is donating money to PACs.

  • 9 votes
#1.11 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:02 PM EDT

GT i didnt equate that. if you read a little bit deeper (not too deep dummy) I said next up was freedom of speech. Let me splain' troglodyte. Obama is going to amend the constitution to undo freedom of speech. No he can't do that and he being a constitutional lawyer clearly understands the hurdles. I can care either way. Not my money thrown away. I wouldnt be screaming if a dem did that. Its irrelevant, just like this grandstanding.

Noid sic semper tyrannis, interesting choice of words. John Wilkes boothe said the same thing as he shot Lincoln. are you advocating something sinister? where is Fisty with the Foutrage? "I am reporting you" LOL. No way Noid i couldnt report you, where would i get little gems like the "GOP created the Taliban" LOL.

  • 5 votes
#1.12 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:07 PM EDT

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine while you're at it.

Koch's for SuperPacs would never allow this, although Clarence Thomas would love to see a case of this type come to the Supreme Court. Isn't that how he lines his pockets - by deciding cases favorably towards Kochs?

  • 10 votes
#1.13 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:11 PM EDT

I don't see how so called "conservatives" can't see that the citizen's united decision has eroded the freedom and power of the ordinary American.

As soon as they started losing elections, conservatives suddenly loved them some good old massive swift-boat funding. So no, they do not see this, they like their big money influence, even when it comes from the Chinese via the Shanghai Whore Adelson.

  • 10 votes
#1.14 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:14 PM EDT

Obama does not like that corporations can now do what his union buddies have been doing all along. A level playing field is not his desire. Of course, Obama has big money supporters too, but he plays the game !

  • 5 votes
#1.15 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:19 PM EDT

Noid sic semper tyrannis, interesting choice of words. John Wilkes boothe said the same thing as he shot Lincoln. are you advocating something sinister?

Oh, Little Caesar, it's such a shame that sarcasm is lost on you.

  • 6 votes
#1.16 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:22 PM EDT

jim,

If the unions were doing the same thing corporations are doing now you wouldn’t know because they would be secret donations.

  • 10 votes
#1.17 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:23 PM EDT

its not lost noid, cuz if that were the case you wouldnt have said that.

  • 2 votes
#1.18 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:25 PM EDT

If the unions could do the same thing corporations are doing now you wouldn’t know because they would be secret donations.

Dennis,

Don't confuse little Jimmy, he's confused enough already!

This is the same guy who starts out a comment with nothing but personal attacks in the first paragraph and bitches in the second about name calling!

Poor things are really spinning their wheels... lol

  • 9 votes
#1.19 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:26 PM EDT

While I disagree with the outcome of the Citizens United v. FEC, the decision itself was correct. Under the requirements of the First Amendment, speech, even political speech, should not be limited absent extreme circumstances. If a person is unable to use his money to make that speech known, then the freedom of speech is useless.

Eventually, the rest of McCain Feingold will go away and people will be able to make unlimited contributions directly to campaigns. We will then have a series of very corrupt politicians take office and then, eventually a new campaign finance law based on the actual, documented corruption that everyone knows will happen.

With Citizens United and the related Caperton v. Massey we have the US Supreme Court exercising its will over the other branches of government and as a result, eventually diminishing its own power. The only power the Court truly has is based on the respect of "the rule of law." When the leaders of the other branches of government and the subjects of the rule no longer respect the Court, the Court will not be able to enforce its decrees. If the Court takes it too far, chaos will ensue.

The corrupt supporters of the Republican Party have used the terms of the decisions to affect the elections this season. While the corruption has not yet been shown, the seeds have been planted. Whether it is the kind of threats that Senator Lugor and Senator Bennett received or other eventual theats, there will be corruption.

  • 1 vote
#1.20 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:16 PM EDT

Spending money isn't speech.

Corporations aren't people.

  • 5 votes
#1.21 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:21 PM EDT

freedom of speech? or just insane money game favoring the rich - I am talking about Citizens United, of course.

The choice is obvious: B (2nd).

Obama/Biden 2012

  • 4 votes
#1.22 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 PM EDT
  • Chris Christie 2016
  • A Krispy Kreme in every mouth!

Hey gang! We really need to get started on the Repeal of the 22nd Amendment, so President Obama can run for a third term.

  • 2 votes
#1.23 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:41 AM EDT

Let's Get Er Done Already..... It was Bull@!$%# when it was passed and needs to be gone.....

  • 2 votes
#1.24 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:24 AM EDT

Hey Feisty - Do you think that Hussein knows how many of the 57 states have to ratify it to become an amendment to the Constitution?

  • 1 vote
#1.25 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:11 AM EDT

Be careful what you wish for libbies. You do know whenever you put one of your great ideas into practice, it never turns out good. If corporations are not people, then neither are labor unions. You're going to kill off the only remaining stronghold for the Democrat Party.

  • 1 vote
#1.26 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:20 AM EDT

If corporations are not people, then neither are labor unions

No court has held that labor unions are people. Just sayin.

  • 3 votes
#1.27 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:30 AM EDT

It's not freedom of speech when money buys one voice over many voices...

I'm glad that President Obama is showing interest in this, I just wish he'd done it sooner... And I hope he gets involved in voter registration... (voter ID.) Every citizen, over eighteen should be registered to vote in this country...

That would put the big money republicans out of business...

  • 6 votes
#1.28 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:07 PM EDT

Terry -

It's not freedom of speech when money buys one voice over many voices...

That doesn't apply to George Soros, though, right?

  • 1 vote
#1.29 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:14 PM EDT

dslca -

No court has held that labor unions are people. Just sayin.

But not thinking. Labor unions have unlimited lobbying and donation capabilities.

  • 1 vote
#1.30 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:16 PM EDT

Corporations are not people... they are a legal body that exists only on paper.

Their assets, taxes, income, and legal liability is completely separate from their CEO and shareholders. Those people already have individual rights to use their own individual resources.Corporations can not go to jail, go hungry, or give their life for their country. Until they can do these things they are not people.

Money is not free speech. Free speech is a idea of equality.

Suggesting that money is free speech means that a very, very, very small portion of the country has more free speech than the rest of the nation. Meaning corporations have more free speech than you. This is not acceptable when promoting the ideal of equality. People have the right to voice their opinion, they do not have the right to drown out all other voices with a golden microphone via political contributions.

These are facts, anyone that can't see why citizens united was the worst decision to impact American politics is just plain ignorant.

"if corporations are people, then Mitt Romney is a serial killer."

  • 2 votes
#1.31 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:38 PM EDT

Colorado:

Labor unions have unlimited lobbying and donation capabilities

That's true, but misleading and it ignores the fact that unions are legally treated differently than corporations. Unions must get the consent of each individual member before spending any of that member's dues on political activities; corporation do not have to get the permission of each individual shareholder to do the same thing.

  • 2 votes
#1.32 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:44 PM EDT

dslca - Shareholders are not assessed monthly dues to continue to be shareholders as are union members. You are comparing apples and oranges. My comment earlier is simply true.

    #1.33 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:54 PM EDT

    As is my comment. So?

    • 1 vote
    #1.34 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:57 PM EDT

    Yes, it would definitely apply to George Soros.

    Just curious: do any of you know how much money the campaigns of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter got from partisan donors in the 1980 election? Do you know how much time the campaigns spent on fundraising for that election cycle?

    The answer to both questions is zero. Does that blow your minds, young'uns? Both campaigns were entirely funded by the American people, who checked a box on our tax returns donating one dollar to the election (if we wanted). The total was divided equally between the two campaigns.

    Now our politicians are forced to start fundraising immediately after the election, fearing a disadvantage on the next one. Now our politicians have to bow and scrape to the wealthy, promising them the world if they'd just loosen up those purse strings. Now our politicians have much, much less time to actually do their jobs. Now our politicians have to worry about even the most stupid ideas, because even a very stupid idea - backed with tons of cash - can become law.

    I guess we never had a democracy before 1980, huh? Freedom of speech? Please. We've only had a plutocracy for a few years. Like what you see? Me neither, time to change it back to a democracy.

    • 1 vote
    #1.35 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:05 PM EDT

    dslsca - You called mine misleading, which it isn't. The point is that prior to the Citizens United decision union members had free rein to influence elections with donations while their employers didn't. Now we do.

      #1.36 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:07 PM EDT

      Hey you two, let's just cut to the bottom line, shall we?

      At no time have the unions been able to give unlimited funds to politicians, when corporations couldn't.

      At no time have unions had a spending advantage over corporations.

      At no time have unions ever spent as much as corporations on political activity.

      Is that clear enough?

      • 3 votes
      #1.37 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:24 PM EDT

      Hey SnakeBone - You should be Bone Snake because your comments are all BS.

      • 1 vote
      #1.38 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:36 PM EDT

      Hmmm, very astute. Let me recheck...

      Let's see... that one's true... that one... yeah, that's true, too...

      Well, I seem to have pretty much just stated one fact after another. Ok, so if what's true is BS, does that mean what's BS is true? Since you gave no example of what you think is false, I can't help you.

      Good one on the name, though. Very persuasive.

        #1.39 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:17 PM EDT

        Snakebone -

        Of course they are limited by their funds, so they are not unlimited.

        Unions have had spending advantages over corporations.

        Unions have spent more than corporations, thus the reason for Citizens United.

        • 1 vote
        #1.40 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:02 PM EDT

        CO: Any, you know, data to support your claim?

          #1.41 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:14 PM EDT

          On your idea that Citizens United was meant to fix an imbalance between corporate and union political spending rules:

          "The (Citizens United ) decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions." (emphasis mine)

          "...the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions." (emphasis mine)

          Both were restricted prior, and the restrictions for both were lifted at the same time. Who did you say had an advantage? That came from Wikipedia, by the way, and took all of 30 seconds to look up.

          On spending, From Opensecrets.org, a non-partisan site related to political spending:

          "The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.

          Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1." (emphasis mine)

          If you check out their charts, you will find comparative spending for unions vs corporations:

          In '08:

          unions spent almost 75 million, corporations spent just under 2 billion.

          in '10:

          unions spent 96.64 million, corporations spent 1.367 billion

          in '12 so far:

          unions spent just under 70 million, corporations spent a little more than 1.5 billion.

          The reason Citizens United was so important to conservatives is that they knew, if elections became a spending free-for-all, that unions had no chance of competing. Apparently you didn't get the memo. Any other facts you want to call BS?

          • 1 vote
          #1.42 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:45 PM EDT

          Hey Colorado, listen, I just read the thread again, and I realize I came across kinda snarky. Sorry about that. I get caught up in the argument sometimes.

            #1.43 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:38 PM EDT

            stupid people, Obama is only concerned because he is losing. In 2008, he and McCain agreed to go with public funding which would have limited the spending, but Obama is such a snake in the grass, he backed out at the last minute because he realized how much the unions were willing to spend to buy the election. I went to the Federal Election Committee site after he was elected, and the fraud was blatently obvious. Tools

              #1.44 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:50 PM EDT

              Crystal: check the numbers above.

              in 2008, unions spent almost 75 million. Corporations spent just under 2 billion.

              You were saying?

                #1.45 - Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:10 AM EDT
                Reply

                Please do. I am tired of the elections being run by Chinese government whores like Adelson. Would also be nice force the Koch brothers to zip it up. No one wants to see the nasty crap they wave around.

                • 11 votes
                #2 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:23 PM EDT

                Please do. I am tired of the elections being run by Chinese government whores like Adelson.

                Adelson...Adelson... hmmm... where have I heard that name?

                Oh *snap* isn't he the guy who is facing indictment for money laundering?

                • 12 votes
                #2.1 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:26 PM EDT

                Adelson...Adelson... hmmm... where have I heard that name?

                You remember...Sheldon Adelson was the guy who bankrolled Newt Gingrich's "King of Bain" attack ad against Mitt Romney.

                • 11 votes
                #2.2 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:30 PM EDT

                Reddev dumb statement and this is just Obamao grandstanding. He aint getting what he wants monetarily so he's crying foul. Won't happen though.

                • 4 votes
                #2.3 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:32 PM EDT

                @Caesar,

                So, you think that foreign governments and corporations being allowed to invest in U.S. elections is a good thing?

                • 7 votes
                #2.4 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:42 PM EDT

                Caesar doesn't have a thought in his head, Bali Bob, and probably couldn't tell you what Super PACs are. His entire mission in life is to follow Feisty around. If you ever need the definition of an internet troll, look no further than Caesar.

                That being said, Way to go Mr. President!

                4 more for 44

                • 9 votes
                #2.5 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:47 PM EDT

                His entire mission in life is to follow Feisty around. If you ever need the definition of an internet troll, look no further than Caesar.

                You noticed it too? lol

                Best thing I did was put my shadow on ignore a while ago! Makes the FR experience MUCH more enjoyable!

                • 7 votes
                #2.6 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:49 PM EDT

                So, you think that foreign governments and corporations being allowed to invest in U.S. elections is a good thing?

                Bali -

                Lighten up a little. This is Caesar you're dealing with here. He is not exactly a Repub think tank, if you know what I mean.

                • 6 votes
                #2.7 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:52 PM EDT

                .

                • 3 votes
                #2.8 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:52 PM EDT

                Is anybody else having problems posting?

                • 3 votes
                #2.9 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:57 PM EDT

                @GT,

                Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3, 4...

                • 3 votes
                #2.10 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:01 PM EDT

                Caesar doesn't have a thought in his head, Bali Bob, and probably couldn't tell you what Super PACs are. His entire mission in life is to follow Feisty around. If you ever need the definition of an internet troll, look no further than Caesar.

                That being said, Way to go Mr. President!

                4 more for 44

                Funny I guess everyone does that too Layton. since Fisty posts first. And poor fisty noticed i followed it around but i am on ignore. Doh Face Palm Fisty.

                Bali Bob foreign corps investing in our politcs and let me guess the only benefactors are the GOP? Hell Russia and Cuba would love to invest in Obama. As would Chavez. Back to Bali bob, take GT with you.

                • 3 votes
                #2.11 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:11 PM EDT

                Caesar, slow afternoon so I'll repond to you. Yes, Feisty posts first now and then, big deal! It's a post - weird how it really upsets people like you and your twin Concern. Most everyone else posts on topic, but not you two, you're content coming up with silly little names that make no sense and make all of your posts (both yours and Concerns) appear to be written with the intent to anger others rather than contribute at all to the conversation. Just my $.02.

                • 5 votes
                #2.12 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:18 PM EDT

                Aww...poor Little Caesar having a bad day today? Chasing around GT like you have a little schoolgirl crush or something...

                PIZZA! PIZZA!

                There there...feel better?

                "LOL"

                • 7 votes
                #2.13 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:18 PM EDT

                sure Layton on topic. The topic could be Manure and you guys would talk about 'Queen Ann'. Dont lecture me about on topic. I answered bali bobs question dont let that get in the way of delusions. Bottom line is i dont agree with the hard left che guevara thinking you dont like me. boo hoo.

                My Mickey whistle works but for the record GT found me. why dont you go see for you self burning man.

                PS hey nice downplay layton fisty posting first every once in a while. I could care less, i like to harass the trailer trash as it never stays on topic itself. now go pontificate you arrogant azz to someone who cares.

                • 1 vote
                #2.14 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:24 PM EDT

                PIZZA! PIZZA!

                [My Mickey whistle works]

                Dude, don't get upset at me because you got your ass handed to you in a public forum..."LOL"

                And the kicker is that you're all upset by it..."LOL"

                Wow...a "cyberspace ass-handing"..."LOL"

                • 4 votes
                #2.15 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:27 PM EDT

                Dude, don't get upset at me because you got your ass handed to you in a public forum..."LOL"

                you think repeating this makes it true? ok whatever makes you feel better little guy. Upset hardly, not phased at all. tell me mickey who benefits soley from the CU ruling?

                after all, its guys like you Mickey. horrible song too

                • 1 vote
                #2.16 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:34 PM EDT

                [tell me mickey who benefits soley from the CU ruling?]

                That would be nobody, in my opinion....was that a trick question?

                And yeah, you got schooled..."LOL" It is all about "getting owned" for you, isn't it?

                Sure it is..."LOL"

                But that's ok...you'll live, right? After all, you would know that a bruised ego eventually heals...

                PIZZA! PIZZA!

                • 4 votes
                #2.17 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:46 PM EDT

                Nothing in campaign finance laws as the are right now would prevent a foreign government from forming a US corporation, giving it a ton of money, and having it run campaign ads for or against any candidate and then folding up. THAT is the scary part of this decision.

                • 3 votes
                #2.18 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:21 PM EDT

                bruised ego mickey. what all 5 of you see this right now, yeah ouch? it wasn't trick question. my point is both sides can 'benefit' from the ruling. I dont care for citizens united but it wont be over turned anymore the Roe V Wade. Obama is grandstanding and pandering. He knows it being a constitutional scholar and all. But its your lefty friends that seem to think the GOP are going to buy an election with ads. Funny how obama wanted to raise 1 bil for his campaign. whats the difference. nothing. Just Obamao sounds a little whiney now and i suspect he aint getting the Super Pacs in his favor.

                • 1 vote
                #2.19 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:32 PM EDT

                Bali Bob - So, you think that foreign governments and corporations being allowed to invest in U.S. elections is a good thing?

                dirp

                Nothing in campaign finance laws as the are right now would prevent a foreign government from forming a US corporation, giving it a ton of money, and having it run campaign ads for or against any candidate and then folding up. THAT is the scary part of this decision.

                I don't recall, but did you guys have any problems with Gore and Hussein taking foreign nationals' money?

                  #2.20 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:14 AM EDT
                  Reply

                  Citizens United was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court.

                  We now have foreign entities investing in our elections.

                  How can any so-called "Patriot" find that acceptable?

                  • 9 votes
                  Reply#3 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:29 PM EDT

                  Citizen's united isn't the problem.

                  An outdated 19th century bandwagon campaign model that occupies half of a presidential term is the problem. What we need is campaign renovation to move this country into the information age. Here is a jumping off point:

                  1 - limit campaigning to a 3 month general election, and a 3 month primary season. With all the TV, radio, and web saturation of politics, this is plenty of time to make an informed decision.

                  2 - each candidate is given web space and a forum to outline their platform, and allow discussion on topical issues. forums would be a great tool in allowing the public access to discuss things with candidates.

                  3 - no more tv/radio advertising, and each race would have a minimum of 3 debates that would be broadcast on TV and the radio. This would help to get the propaganda out of the discourse and move issues and policy back into the limelight.

                  4 - allow web advertising, but any ad that is not factual, as determined by factcheck.org or another non-partisan group, would be labeled as a distortion per the rating organization.

                  four quick steps and we would no longer be bombarded with all the negative campaigning, and i think that this condensed election season would help to make the electorate more likely to participate in our democracy because they won't be beaten down by the sheer length of campaigns. plus, if we have 12 - 18 months that are no longer campaign season, we can demand our elected officials to EARN THEIR GORRAM SALARY and do their job. what do you think?

                  • 7 votes
                  Reply#4 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:45 PM EDT

                  I certainly hope that we amend the Constitution to specify that the rights given by it only apply to human beings.

                  • 5 votes
                  Reply#5 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:48 PM EDT

                  That's already made clear: "All persons born or naturalized. . ."

                  • 1 vote
                  #5.2 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:59 PM EDT
                  Reply

                  Yahoo News fires reporter, apologizes to Romney over 'black people drowning' remark

                  Yes, it is news from Fox.

                    Reply#6 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:07 PM EDT

                    Rush made a similar remark yesterday. I wonder if they'll fire him?

                    • 6 votes
                    #6.1 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:13 PM EDT
                    Reply

                    It's about time, the SC sold the American people to the highest bidder; this would be a big step in taking this country back!

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#8 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:31 PM EDT

                    It is about time and the next one to redo is the voter laws so down the road another party can never mess with voters rights again.

                    Two things in this voter amendment should state that it is mandatory that everyone that is eligible and legal to vote does so, starting on their eighteenth birthday.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#10 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:07 PM EDT

                    Interstingly when the right wing nut job Fascist wannabes want some cockamaimie Constitutional Amendment based on some whim or stupid thing that would end up like prohibition they drip with praise and adoration but when a Democrat proposes something that fixes a problem because of abuse of the privelages those same people whine and complain about it.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#11 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:40 PM EDT

                    ECONOMIC HORSE SENSE

                    ARE YOU BEING BRAIN WASHED, DUPED AND MIS-LED?

                    By: sabibb5524@gmail.com

                    Also Read details at: https://sites.google.com/site/economictruthyouneedtoknow/home

                    • If I have chicken eggs and you have corn we can barter with each other to exchange Resources.
                    • Money or Currency is an exchange medium set up by a group of people or Government (Gov) that is collaboratively trusted by all parties to use for exchanging Resources.
                    • A country without an abundance of Resources has no power to create an economy for anyone by itself. Resources are the backbone of any sustainable economy.
                    • The ability to effectively tap into those Resources and utilize them to create jobs requires knowledge, education, innovation and technology.
                    • Civilizations exist due to some degree of order and law and without it there is chaos and no possibility for a Gov to be established to provide and Regulate Order and Law for the benefit of humans that co-exist in the same location.
                    • If there is no Gov, then by logical deduction we cannot have Civilization. If there is no Civilization and no form of agreeable Gov; I maintain it is impossible to achieve a sustainable economy for the masses.
                    • Gov is given power and authority by people to Regulate and Implement Policies and Laws for the benefit of the people. It is the Gov’s job to:
                      • Ensure Domestic Security and Safety
                      • Ensure Domestic Economic Stability
                      • Protect the Rights of its Citizens
                      • Ensure its Citizens have Equal Opportunities
                      • Promote Freedom, Democracy, Capitalism and Free Markets
                    • If Resources are the backbone of any economy then whoever controls those Resources has power to establish, develop, create, maintain, grow, stimulate, or advance economic growth.
                    • The Fifth Amendment to Constitution says “The Supreme Court has held that the federal gov and each state has the power of eminent domain—the power to take private property for "public use".
                    • Right or wrong, we the people have given this power to the Gov. The US Gov as well is responsible for REGULATING the exchange of goods and services by whatever exchange medium agreed to and accepted by the people (US Dollar).
                    • The inherent power of the Gov to use and control all Property (Resources) in this country nullifies the Gov’s obligation to a Debt of those Resources. How can the Gov have a Debt to that which they already have power to control, use or distribute at will? I maintain it is not possible.
                    • I maintain the US Gov is a DISTRIBUTOR OF CURRENCY and by sheer power has the right to use whatever amount of CURRENCY it desires against those National Resources, without cost to the Gov. I maintain it is IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEBT TO THAT WHICH YOU CONTROL AND OWN.
                    • From a National Security perspective; the US Gov does not compute Economic Stability based on Corp Stock, Corp Growth or Triple A Ratings; but instead bases economic stability on the Gov’s ability and power to control, maintain, and utilize its own domestic Resources to create jobs, industries and manufacture goods and services and based on the Gov's ability to control, use and negotiate for other countries Resources around the world in order to preserve its own Resources. Hence the most powerful military in the world and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
                    • There was an economic crash in 1929. By 1939 the Federal Debt was at least twice the Gross National Product (GNP) and unemployment was higher than 25% (see http://investmentwatchblog.com/us-1929-great-depression-vs-2008-financial-housing-credit-crisis/). In 1941 the US entered World War II and rolled out of the Federal Reserve the equivalent of Trillions of more dollars (in today’s dollars) on top of the already existing debt, to pay for the war and building the Defense Highway System, the electrical grid, dams, bridges, educational institutions, etc. By the end of 1945 the unemployment rate had dropped to about 1% (see http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII) and the economy was booming. After the War the US then rolled out of the Federal Reserve the equivalent of Trillions more dollars to pay for rebuilding Europe, Japan, etc. Then after that, the US began a surge of expanding the economies of the world by rolling Trillions more out of the Federal Reserve to build up the economies of the world and sending manufacturing jobs overseas to accomplish this Global Economic Expansion. This of course meant further De-Regulations on Corporations (Corps) to allow them the freedom to move manufacturing and jobs overseas. We created this Global Economy through utilization of our Federal Reserve (Rolling US Dollars out of it).
                    • So what happened to all that Federal Debt? Did it ever get paid back to the Federal Reserve? NO it did NOT
                    • Why Not? Because it did not matter after there was enough tax base from people being employed to cover the operational costs of the Gov (deficit). Once the deficit was removed the Federal Debt did not matter.
                    • Other countries and financial institutions compute the economic viability of the US based on its abundance of Resources, its ability to utilize those Resources and its ability to control and negotiate for control and use of Resources around the world and not on Currency rolling out of the Federal Reserve.
                    • What is Monopolization? Monopolization is where a Company controls most if not all of a product or service to the point where no other Company can compete for marketing or servicing that product or service.
                    • Monopolization is what destroys COMPETITION in the market place and what destroys CAPITALISM. That is what has caused the disparity of wealth in this country and that is one of the main reasons the economy here in the US is suffering. It was not size of gov or Federal Debit that caused the economy to crash at the end of 2007. It was monopolization of the financial companies and mortgage companies that are still not broken up that caused it. We see where the Republican Party in the House of Representative has continuously blocked all efforts by the Obama Administration to break up these monopolistic "Too Big to Fail Corps". https://sites.google.com/site/economictruthyouneedtoknow/home
                    • Monopolization is a bigger issue and problem than size of Gov. That is what a Corps does if they are not regulated properly. And they will of course if De-Regulated send jobs overseas if it is advantageous to do so. Why are the Republicans and Mitt Romney against breaking up these Monopolies? They are bought off by Corporations.
                    • We see this push to convince us that the main problems with the economy has to do with too much gov (it's to big) and the Federal Debt is going to cause our economy to crash. We see this constantly being advocated as the main problems with the economy recovering. I think that is complete distortion of the truth, mis-leading and there are zero facts to back that up. It is fear mongering and propaganda and its intent is to get us to believe that we need to give more money to Corps, more power to influence Gov, tax them less and then Trust Corps to take care of us.
                    • We see where the gov (Republican Controlled House of Representatives) has refused to appropriate annual funding over the last 2 years for teachers, firemen and police officers and other union type jobs that states have needed to keep these folks employed. There have been over a million teachers, police officers and firemen alone who have lost their jobs due to this. All in the name of trying to shrink the size of gov knowing the states do not have the money to keep these people employed.
                    • This does not fix anything. These people get laid off and now they can't even pay taxes but have to go on welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc and can't contribute anything back into the system in the form of taxes. Slowly reducing the size of gov is necessary but it should be done slowly by "transferring the jobs" to private industry or to states when/after they have enough tax base to support those people to keep them employed. Hence the primary focus should be on JOB CREATION not gutting the Gov and sending people into welfare which enables Companies to lower their wages because people are now more desperate for work.
                    • Republican lawmakers advocate and are pushing to get rid of the Depart of Education and The EPA, etc., and such is planned by Mitt Romney. We have shown above the danger in this and how important these agencies are to National Security and stability of our economy.
                    • We see where this country has massive amounts of resources to utilize to create jobs and put people back to work but nothing is being done. Why, because lawmakers (Republicans in the House of Representatives) say we can't because of this Federal Debt. They have blocked all efforts by the Obama Administration for Job Creation.
                    • It is a fact that if you own a car outright, then you cannot have a debt against it. The Gov may track the so called Federal Debt but they do not acquire debt against national domestic resources. You have debt, I have debt, Corps has debt but the US Gov does not acquire debt against national resources. The US Gov is distributor of currency and they have the power and right to utilize that currency at will against any and all national resources.
                    • The Federal Debt matters to Corps because it can devalue the dollar on the world market but look how great US Corps are doing despite the Federal Debt. Why? Because countries and Financial Institutions measure the US credit mainly on its abundance of resources (assets) and the Gov’s ability to utilize them with technology, innovation and education and our ability to acquire, control or negotiate for resources around the world at will. Hence again a large military. https://sites.google.com/site/economictruthyouneedtoknow/home
                    • Reducing the military drastically in the name of Federal Debt is not good for the economy. What really matters is tapping into our resources to put people back to work so there is enough tax base to pay for operating the Fed Gov & State Govs.
                    • To strengthen the economy the country should be investing further in DOD and not cutting military spending.
                    • This notion that the problems stem from Federal Debt, Size of Gov and too many social programs is none sense. People have to go on social programs because they don't have a job. It is the Gov’s role to assist in the creation of jobs and then transfer those industries and jobs to the private sector if necessary. That is exactly what they did after WWII. When people lose their jobs the Gov has no choice but to provide some services for them. Otherwise the country would fall into a revolution.
                    • We see the disparity of wealth in this country greater than ever before. We see fewer people and Corps controlling a larger percentage of wealth of this country and the middle class is shrinking, job wages are going down and jobs are being sent overseas at a faster rate than ever before. Why? Because of Deregulation. The Republican GOP and Mitt Romney are focused on further De-Regulations, Giving more money to Corps, Reducing the Size of Gov at the expense of jobs to enable Companies to lower wages further, sending more jobs overseas, and getting rid of social net programs to help the poor and the middle class. They want you to believe that Corps will hire more people in this country if we simply give them more power and freedom and don’t tax them and continue to allow them freedom to send jobs overseas. It really comes down to whom you believe should be making decisions for the masses. Corps or the Gov. President Obama understand a need for a balanced approach to the economic problems and the need to reduce Monopolization, increase competition and tap into the Resources for creating more jobs just like we did during WWII. Vote for Obama / Biden 2012.
                    • Republican GOP and Mitt Romney’s addenda is to increase wealth for the wealthy 1% which will increase the disparity of wealth, pushing more people into poverty, Cutting taxes on the wealthy, increasing Monopolization which will reduce Competition in the Free Market System and reduce Capitalism, gutting the US Gov by getting rid of vital departments such as Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, etc, cutting off Student Loans, Take Away Women’s Health Care, Reduce Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to Voucher Programs that will be played on the Stock Market, and Send more jobs Overseas; all in the name of a Federal Debt and Gov Size to give more power to Corps. Vote Obama/Biden 2012
                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#12 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:46 PM EDT

                    Obama can't do @!$%# about a constitutional admendment. He's not part of the process, unless of course he wants to usurp powers not entitled to him.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#13 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:03 PM EDT

                    Still sitting in your bedroom looking at that faded and torn obama poster (the one of him community organizing)? Four years of promises down the drain and 5 Trillion in debt. We would have been better off with no president for 4 years than what was foisted on us. No constitutional ammendment, no more smoke screens. Show us the jobs and econimic recovery or head back to Chicago and organize. Enough!

                      Reply#16 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:58 PM EDT

                      The Political Wisdom of Forrest Gump:

                      My momma says "stupid is as stupid does, and also as TeaBagger Conservative Republicans do too." I don't much like Tea anyway. It's kinds a sissy drink, if you know what I mean.


                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#17 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:46 AM EDT
                      USAF51Deleted
                      USAF51Deleted

                      The next constitutional amendment needs to be the one that changes the word person to citizen where ever it appears in the constitution. That will stop many of the reasons illegal aliens invade our country, include anchor babies.

                        Reply#20 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:54 AM EDT

                        Subject: Democrat National Committee Convention

                        Theme; 4ward in the fog...

                        Hey, for your ows info; On September 4wardth the 9am opening event is the stars an stripes flag desecration ceremony...

                        There is a meal served off of the America banner buffet starting promptly following the observance,
                        I believe you all will be happy that I clued you in on the excrement for all smorgasbord and all the donkey urine koolaid you can't lovingly slurp up off of the opulent sleeping bag punch bowl...

                        Blue solo-cups only please, non complementary Big O & lil joe logos available for fity daulla$ hourly rental/donation gov't mandated charge consult ACA for details...

                        There will be a ground floor opportunity In the Star field don't miss your chance to get in on the Feast of the Fecal non-competition. Contestants will be non graded and all participants will be dully rewarded 4ward with exactly the same type of golden-brown encrusted blue ribbon in celebration of utopic equality for all....
                        Please sign up online @

                        www.onager_ordure_starmunch@DNClies.com or @ WWW.lets_beliberal4ward@BHOoneandone.com

                        Before sunday nite 11:5ate pm enter code {imaliar} for special offer

                        Also; side note sixteen trillion in debt

                        commensurate charges apply indefinitely to children grand children and when applicable any descendants necessary to fund repayment in kind , henceforth, all terms subject to revision by czars an bureaucrats at sole discretion of Potus 44 aka Pharaoh BARAKHUSSEINOBAMA mmm mmm MMM ,!,

                        vote R&R

                          Reply#21 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:57 AM EDT

                          Freedom of Speech was conceived to protect political speech. The expansion to allow the public utterances of obscene language is a recent development. By recent I mean the past 50 or 60 years.

                            Reply#22 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:34 AM EDT

                            OBAMA, did not deserve election in 2008. his whole ideology is skewed towards fundamental change of our way of life. Even though he is a natural born American it is obvious that he is not one of us...

                            Hillary would have been a far greater choice for the democrat party but more importantly The Country's well being.

                            the really sad part the amount of suffering, ie people out of work people loosing every thing. The physiological effects of non prosperity has on the willingness to pull ones self up by the boot straps not to mention the amount of debt, and simply poor GDP level

                            The utter Waste of "by the time he is done" four years wasted gone, YOU cant get back time...

                            Even my company has suffered loses due to BHO but We have weathered this apocalyptic hope and change B/S artist long enough now...

                            I'm interested in expansion but I refuse to make any real substantive changes in my business model until BHO is gone be it January 20th 2012 or 2016

                            I know Mitt, he will help get government out of the way to allow business leaders to help put america back to work even though we are not in the business of employing people many of us will do what it takes to increase our bottom line if that means more Production then that means more jobs...

                            VOTE R&R

                              Reply#23 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:01 AM EDT

                              Here's something that's not getting a lot of mention....I understand the notion that "corporations are people"....they're made up of the people that work there and make them tick. Benign enough, right? Well, if the company I work for decides it wants to support a certain candidate, and then spends money to support that candidate, I as an individual had no say in whether or not we as a company support said candidate. The board might, or the CEO, etc, but 99.999% of the time, not the typical worker/manager/salesman. So, is it right that my labor and effort and contribution to my workplace results in support for a candidate I DO NOT support? And, I can hear it now...."well, if you don't support their position, go work somewhere else"....really? Jobs are not clubs, they are not something you can just join or drop out of because you do or don't like something. We have families to take care of and insure.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#24 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 AM EDT

                              Great idea President Obama, take the elections out of the hands of the likes of Karl Rove and The Koch bros.

                                Reply#25 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:54 AM EDT

                                I'm sick of the entire political election process. Unfortunately, there isn't a good answer. I for one don't put much faith in what politicians or super PAC's say when campaigning. Politicians only say what people want to hear, and they twist the truth. Obama is a prime example of twisting the truth. Politicians seem to breed on negative campaigning. I have never heard a politician outline in detail how he intends to accomplish his goals. All I hear are empty promises. I've learned to vote with my heart and not my ears. It doesn't take much to recognize what type of a person a politician is and what beliefs that person has to determine if my views fall in line with his/her's.

                                  Reply#26 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:01 AM EDT

                                  Barack Obama:

                                  Alias Barry Soetoro pawns himself as Barack Obama, the humanitarian, the POTUS, the campaign for hope and change. But we know better. Barry is a radical Marxist who was raised by Communist parents and Communist grandparents. His mentors were known Communists, his contacts in college were strictly Marxists supporters, Marxist professors and a group of Pakistani activists as stated in his book, "Dreams From My Father".

                                  Barack Obama, tell us about Frank Marshall Davis or Bill Ayers. Surely you remember Mr. Davis. After all, your mother knew him all too well. Mr. Ayers, a known terrorist, responsible for at least a dozen bombings, helped your early Illinois campaign by raising money, thru his organization Underground Weather. Tell us about your trip to Pakistan ('81) with Pakistani Wahid Hamid.

                                  Share with us your ideals of socialism, after all you're a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), referred as the "New Party". Please tell us why you have been influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, the prelude to Communism. Share with us your association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Do you justify this man's message by condemning our country by saying, "God bless America? No, God Damn America"? Was this a forethought supporting your belief in Marxism?

                                  Are these the individuals who have inspired you to public office? Are these the individuals who have inspired you to plot against the United States? Are they the people for whom you've entrusted your Muslim faith?

                                  Please tell us why you mocked the Holy Bible and Jesus' sermon on the mount, calling the sermon a radical message. You have mocked Christianity and this country. Barack Obama, you have betrayed this nation and all its' people. Your skin is dark because of your race, but your soul is darker because of your deception.

                                  United States of America………………you didn't build it Barack Obama.

                                    Reply#27 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:25 AM EDT

                                    TopDrum, look outside!!! The black helicopters are comin' for ya!

                                      #27.1 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:36 AM EDT

                                      WOW! I truly hope you are able to get mental help soon.

                                        #27.2 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:18 PM EDT
                                        Reply

                                        Citizens United is quite possibly the most destructive ruling the SCOTUS has ever made. ANYONE with half a brain knows full well that our democracy is up for sale to the 1% of this country. If you think for one second this is a matter of free speech, you are delusional at best. If you are not a billionaire, your voice means NOTHING to these criminals infesting our government in Washington. Period.

                                        It doesn't matter what party you "affiliate" yourself with. Yes, this election cycle may very well benefit republicans. But if all of you, as citizens of the USA, truly care about this being the greatest country in the world, we must stop this. A BILLION dollars to influence an election!!! What will it be in 4 years? 2 Billion? And why are these special interests spending this money?? It sure as hell isn't to benefit you or me. It's for them to continue robbing this country blind unabated. Trust me, the Koch Brothers couldn't care less about anything other than their bank accounts and empire.

                                        Time to wake up America.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        Reply#28 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:22 AM EDT

                                        I could not agree more!

                                          #28.1 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:20 PM EDT
                                          Reply

                                          He'll back this unless the law restricting presidents to 2 terms is repealed.

                                            Reply#29 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:26 AM EDT

                                            Osama al-Barack bin-Hussein Obama Mohamed, II doesn't want any PACs accusing him of murder or of being a felon. Guess it's okay to call him a gay, Muslim, Marxist, lying sack of crap, a-hole though.

                                              Reply#30 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:03 PM EDT

                                              WOW! I pray mental help is available for you soon.

                                                #30.1 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:28 PM EDT
                                                Reply

                                                Citizens United, if allowed to stand, will bring about the end of our Republic and Democracy.

                                                Citizens United will result in an Autocracy which will then become a Dictatorship.

                                                The Robert's Court failed the United States of America in their ill informed decision.

                                                A Constitutional Amendment to overturn this travesty is a MUST FOR DEMOCRACY.

                                                  Reply#31 - Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:26 PM EDT
                                                  Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.