

Rep. Deutch Presents Amendment To Ban Corporate Money From Politics - tedkalaw
http://www.ology.com/politics/rep-deutch-presents-amendment-ban-corporate-money-politics

======
DiabloD3
The only problem with the proposed amendment is that it allows non-profits and
only bans for-profit companies.

Excuse me while I go start a non-profit called Elect Ron Paul and give him
lots of money. Hey, its legal, right?

------
tzs
Problems with this:

1\. The press is exempted. So someone with a lot of money they want to spend
promoting a candidate just has to buy a newspaper and push the candidate
through the paper.

2\. Section 1, which describes the organizations covered, lists for-profit
corporations, limited liability companies, and other private entities stabled
for business purposes or to promote business interests. It should not be hard
to organize entities that don't fall under that to do your political advocacy.

3\. Sections 2 and 3 refer to section 1 for their definition of the entities
covered, so have the same problem described above.

4\. Section 4 does not limit itself to the entities describe earlier. It
appears to allow regulation of election expenditures by any entity.

Does that mean they could prohibit me from having a bumper sticker advocating
a candidate? Worse, suppose there is some political issue that the incumbents
do not wish the public to discuss. All they have to do is put some question
related to that on a ballot so that issue is part of an election, then they
can regulate all expenditures related to that.

This is simply a horrible proposed amendment. It has too many loopholes, and
leaves too much open to interpretation so that it could be used for
oppression.

------
Codayus
According to the article, this is a proposed amendment to ban corporations
from making political donations or expenditures. It's not clear from context
if that means companies donating to a political campaign, or if it extends to
independent expenditures that would influence an election. Let's examine each
possibility in turn.

If it just covers donation, then, under current law (which has been upheld by
the Supreme Court) corporations may only contribute a maximum of $5,000 per
candidate. To put that in context, Obama may raise $1 billion dollars this
cycle; the Republican challenger will likely do similarly. Is $5,000 from
Exxon or whatever really worth worrying about? (Besides, under Supreme Court
precedent, you could probably ban all corporate donations if you wanted,
instead of just capping them. Nobody's tried, because honestly, who cares?)

Alternatively, if covers ALL corporate expenditures that may influence an
electionm then it would also remove all free speech protections from such
things as: The New York Times, Michael Moore's movies, MSNBC, Greenpeace, and
more. (Yes, Greenpeace, according the the proposed text of the amendment.) Or
rather, they would have free speech protections as long as didn't say anything
about any political figure or issue, such as the economy, the environment, or
foreign policy.

And that's really the only two options. Either the amendment does absolutely
nothing worthwhile (stopping the scourge of Exxon being able to donate $5k to
a candidate), or it eviscerates pretty much every vestige of a free press left
in America. There's just no way to interpret this as a good idea.

Further, if it DOES stop all corporate expenditures, the only people this
amendment would really benefit is the rich. The 99% can't get our message out
without the help of other people, banding together to help each other. By
removing one of the main ways people group together to get their message out,
you muzzle the little guys. But billionaires face NO restrictions! Nothing in
the amendment stops the Koch brothers from spending an effectively unlimited
amount of money on promoting their favoured candidates and ideas as long as
they do it from "personal" funds. What do you call an amendment that stops me
from donating to Greenpeace so they can run a pro-solar power ad, but doesn't
stop the Koch brothers from running pro-oil ads?)

(Note: I've used left-wing examples as the good guys, and right-wing examples
as the bad guys. If it helps, swap them. Consider the damage done to Fox News
and the NRA, while it lets George Soros spend with impunity, if that's more
alarming. I think this proposed amendment should give everyone something to
hate.)

