The idea that a constitutional amendment like this could be passed is loonytoons, to put it generously, and pure political theater. The only plausible method of neutering Citizens United I see is passing a very large tax, 80-90%,. on ALL campaign contributions (I would include Fox news). The money raised should be allocated to a general fund for voter information on candidate positions, debates, anything related to raising the awareness in voters of the truth and actual positions of the politicians involved.
The 1% controlled GOP has made new taxes anathema, but voters are increasingly disgusted at the constant stream of negative vitriol campaigns are subjecting them to. Vitriol that in many cases is devoid of facts, total lies, and/or grossly twisted positions of opposing candidates.
This would also be incredibly difficult to pass. It would be characterized as a tax on free speech, which I don't think is illegal but would be presented as such. It IS a tax on billionaires who want to buy elections, which is how it would need to be portrayed to pass as well as something that could engender large grassroots support. The debate just surrounding it''s introduction could be very useful in shedding light as well. Needless to say the exact details of fund resources would be difficult, but would also be an informative debate.
We couldn't even get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified. Attempting to amend the constitution in this political climate is just a sop to certain constituencies in an effort to placate and distract them from doing anything useful or substantive. I REPEAT: THIS AMENDMENT IS BULL. Politicians know it will never be enacted, but can look good supporting it. It is good political theater wastes time and will PREVENT anything useful from happening.
Just for additional background info. Germany is highly unionized and their corporations are required to have union representatives on their boards. This provides a more democratic balance to the decisions and seems to prevent the egregious decisions of the psychopathic boards in America. It's not a fluke that the decline of unions preceded the recent corporate decisions producing this rape of the planet and it's less well off inhabitants.
The idea that a constitutional amendment like this could be passed is loonytoons, to put it generously, and pure political theater. The only plausible method of neutering Citizens United I see is passing a very large tax, 80-90%,. on ALL campaign contributions (I would include Fox news). The money raised should be allocated to a general fund for voter information on candidate positions, debates, anything related to raising the awareness in voters of the truth and actual positions of the politicians involved.
The 1% controlled GOP has made new taxes anathema, but voters are increasingly disgusted at the constant stream of negative vitriol campaigns are subjecting them to. Vitriol that in many cases is devoid of facts, total lies, and/or grossly twisted positions of opposing candidates.
This would also be incredibly difficult to pass. It would be characterized as a tax on free speech, which I don't think is illegal but would be presented as such. It IS a tax on billionaires who want to buy elections, which is how it would need to be portrayed to pass as well as something that could engender large grassroots support. The debate just surrounding it''s introduction could be very useful in shedding light as well. Needless to say the exact details of fund resources would be difficult, but would also be an informative debate.
We couldn't even get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified. Attempting to amend the constitution in this political climate is just a sop to certain constituencies in an effort to placate and distract them from doing anything useful or substantive. I REPEAT: THIS AMENDMENT IS BULL. Politicians know it will never be enacted, but can look good supporting it. It is good political theater wastes time and will PREVENT anything useful from happening.
Just for additional background info. Germany is highly unionized and their corporations are required to have union representatives on their boards. This provides a more democratic balance to the decisions and seems to prevent the egregious decisions of the psychopathic boards in America. It's not a fluke that the decline of unions preceded the recent corporate decisions producing this rape of the planet and it's less well off inhabitants.