# No love for the Democrats' Constitutional Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254 "2014-09-12T02:03:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/81 "2014-09-17T21:56:13Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Same point. Any law that places restrictions on a single corporation that’s not placed on others would not be allowed. However any law that places restrictions on ALL corporations without regard to their function, would not be subject to constitutional scrutiny. So a law limiting political speech would have to apply to all corporations whether they are for profit, non-profit, a newspaper, television station, Super-PAC, Union, etc. Is that what you are saying? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/82 "2014-09-17T22:03:11Z")
The problem I have is distinguishing campaign donations from bribery. Perhaps someone can explain to me why If I ongoing relationship with my senator in which I buy him an Rolex every time he votes in favor of a bill I’ve lobbied for it’s corruption. If I ongoing relationship with my senator in which I buy him $100,000 worth of campaign ads every time he votes in favor of a bill I’ve lobbied for it’s nothing wrong. Bribery is the only offense specifically mentioned in the constitution that can lead to impeachment, so it seems unlikely that the founding fathers had preserving the connection between money and power in mind when they wrote the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/83 "2014-09-17T22:07:55Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Very simple. A law that singles out one corporation could be contested on those grounds alone. > > That’s another contortion. Statutes AND case law have already given corporations certain rights. Those would not be rescinded. You just destroyed the argument in favor of McCain-Feingold which exempted numerous corporations. Based on your logic the five judges who said “No you can’t effectively ban movies” were in the right while the four book burners were in the wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/84 "2014-09-17T22:10:02Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The problem I have is distinguishing campaign donations from bribery. > > Perhaps someone can explain to me why > > If I ongoing relationship with my senator in which I buy him an Rolex every time he votes in favor of a bill I’ve lobbied for it’s corruption. > > If I ongoing relationship with my senator in which I buy him $100,000 worth of campaign ads every time he votes in favor of a bill I’ve lobbied for it’s nothing wrong. > Bribery is the only offense specifically mentioned in the constitution that can lead to impeachment, so it seems unlikely that the founding fathers had preserving the connection between money and power in mind when they wrote the first amendment. Citizens United didn’t deal with donations to political candidates. Those are still strictly regulated. Furthermore, the scenario you’re proposing is still illegal under Citizens United. Bricker can correct me if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/85 "2014-09-17T22:21:37Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > So a law limiting political speech would have to apply to all corporations whether they are for profit, non-profit, a newspaper, television station, Super-PAC, Union, etc. Is that what you are saying? Then say all corporations in a specific class or designation. Whatever special caveat you need in order to prevent arbitrary laws that single out specific corporations because the majority party doesn’t like them. You don’t want say, republicans passing laws to limit planned parenthood anymore than you’d want democrats passing laws to limit American Enterprise Institute. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/86 "2014-09-17T22:30:49Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You just destroyed the argument in favor of McCain-Feingold which exempted numerous corporations. > > Based on your logic the five judges who said “No you can’t effectively ban movies” were in the right while the four book burners were in the wrong. There were no “book burners”. Geez, the depths of conservative drama-queening never ceases to amaze me. The dissent in citizens was based on the majority failing to recognize corruption in corporate donations BEYOND \* quid pro quo \*. Nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/87 "2014-09-17T23:22:59Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > There were no “book burners”. Geez, the depths of conservative drama-queening never ceases to amaze me. > > The dissent in citizens was based on the majority failing to recognize corruption in corporate donations BEYOND \* quid pro quo \*. Nothing else. I nearly pissed myself laughing at the suggestion that I’m a conservative. Is Floyd Abrams a conservative? Is the ACLU conservative? And no, your analysis of the case is wrong. The case was whether or not the federal government could effectively ban a film during an election? And yes, effectively banning films is comparable to book burning. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/88 "2014-09-17T23:31:20Z")
Again, I don’t know why it is such a hard concept to understand, but the first amendment protects speech. Not “speech by individuals”. Just speech in general. As for “money is not speech” - fine. Try to convey your “speech” without any money. I guess about the only way you can do it is shouting at passerby on a street corner, or posting on a 'net forum from a public library (not from home, home Internet connections cost money). ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/89 "2014-09-17T23:56:35Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Citizens United didn’t deal with donations to political candidates. Not directly, no. And it’s in that respect that I want to deal with your earlier reply to my comments: > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > As Ray Bradbury famously said, “there are many ways to burn a book.” > > Banning movies may not literally be the same thing but for all intents and purposes it is and people who supported suppressing the documentary Hillary:The Movie were endorsing book burning. > > Why else do you think the ACLU endorsed Citizens United. Rightly or wrongly, the ACLU endorsed Citizens United on very specific narrow grounds that were one of the consequences of McCain Feingold. Many believe [they were wrong to do so](http://www.thenation.com/article/166954/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united). But even if they weren’t, two things here are noteworthy. One is that the ACLU is adamantly against much of the big-money deregulation so beloved by conservatives and the Roberts court. Indeed [right on their website](https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united), in the very article supporting Citizens United, the ACLU states, among other things: > [@](#): > > … the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs. The second thing is that Citizens United is not the only such ruling on campaign finance; the Roberts court has been engaged in a [systematic dismantling of campaign finance laws](http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/pro-money-supreme-court) – for example: [ul] [li]2007: Federal Election Commission (FEC) v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - struck down law that tried to close a major political spending loophole[/li][li]2008: Davis v. FEC - - struck down law providing matching public funds for candidates facing wealthy opponents[/li][li]2011: Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett - similar to Davis v. FEC[/li][li]2012: American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock - struck down law on corporate political spending[/li][li]2014: McCutcheon v. FEC - struck down law on aggregate contribution limits[/li][/ul] It’s not just Citizens United. It’s an unprecedented pattern of travesty. The Koch brothers and their billionaire friends are positively ecstatic to have their control of the political system so firmly cemented. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/90 "2014-09-17T23:57:00Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I nearly pissed myself laughing at the suggestion that I’m a conservative. > > Is Floyd Abrams a conservative? > > Is the ACLU conservative? > > And no, your analysis of the case is wrong. > > The case was whether or not the federal government could effectively ban a film during an election? > > And yes, effectively banning films is comparable to book burning. Well, you drama-queen like a conservative, anyway. And you’re wrong. The federal government didn’t want to ban the movie. They wanted to ban ADVERTISING the movie over the airwaves within 30 days of the dem primaries. Which was violating McCain-Feingold. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/91 "2014-09-18T00:50:11Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Well, you drama-queen like a conservative, anyway. And you’re wrong. The federal government didn’t want to ban the movie. They wanted to ban ADVERTISING the movie over the airwaves within 30 days of the dem primaries. Which was violating McCain-Feingold. That’s why I said “effectively ban the film”. As others have noted speech always, with rare exceptions costs money. Now, is your position that banning ads for a movie that is clearly intended to influence an election is constitutionally permissible? If so, then shouldn’t the FEC have banned ads for the movie Fahrenheit 911 which was clearly designed to influence the 2004 Presidential election? Also, if the banning of ads for a movie is permissible, then why shouldn’t it be constitutionally permissible to ban the showing of the movie intended to influence an election. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/92 "2014-09-18T00:58:33Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Well, you drama-queen like a conservative, anyway. And you’re wrong. The federal government didn’t want to ban the movie. They wanted to ban ADVERTISING the movie over the airwaves within 30 days of the dem primaries. Which was violating McCain-Feingold. Hey now, let’s keep this polite and not make it personal. Anything more like the first part of this and a warning may result. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/93 "2014-09-18T01:28:44Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That’s why I said “effectively ban the film”. Effectively banning the film would be banning any and all advertising. Just banning commercials on TV hardly qualifies. You’re basically using the pretext of advertising the movie in commercials to trash the candidate. The same way a political ad would. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > As others have noted speech always, with rare exceptions costs money. That doesn’t mean money=speech or limiting spending is limiting speech. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Now, is your position that banning ads for a movie that is clearly intended to influence an election is constitutionally permissible? > > If so, then shouldn’t the FEC have banned ads for the movie Fahrenheit 911 which was clearly designed to influence the 2004 Presidential election? > > Also, if the banning of ads for a movie is permissible, then why shouldn’t it be constitutionally permissible to ban the showing of the movie intended to influence an election. Same point, you’re skirting election laws under the pretense of showing a movie. And again, it has to be within a certain time frame of an election. Fahrenheit 911 was released in June 2004. Well ahead of the Presidential election that year. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/94 "2014-09-18T02:24:25Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > I’m old enough to remember when Democrats supported free speech. > Now wherever I look I see that they oppose it. This has nothing to do with free speech. It’s about donating money to politicians. That’s not speech in any normal sense of the word. It was not recognized as speech when the First Amendment was written. And no court said donating money was speech prior to 1974. That’s the year the Supreme Court invented the idea that money is speech. It’s nowhere in the text of the Constitution. It was pure judicial activism. So let me invent something. If you can call donating money speech, then I can make up what I want to call it as well. I’ve decided to call it child molesting. From now on, when I say child molesting, I’m talking about donating money to a political cause. So let me be the first to say I’m opposed to child molesting. I applaud the efforts by some Democrats to put an end to child molesting. It’s just too bad so many Republicans enjoy child molesting and make money from child molesting. Hopefully, Americans will wake up to how bad child molesting is and will support a Constitutional amendment against child molesting. And maybe the Republicans who are in favor of child molesting will be called upon to answer for what they’ve done. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/95 "2014-09-18T02:43:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This has nothing to do with free speech. It’s about donating money to politicians. Who were the politicians who were having money donated to them in the Citizens United case and exactly how was the money being donated to them? When the Colbert Report, the New York Times, or the Sierra Club rips into a politician are they making a campaign donation? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/96 "2014-09-18T06:55:01Z")
That’s the catch. It’s called “in kind”, and the definition is so broad that allowing Congress to regulate such “donations” pretty much means they can regulate anything they want. It’s as broad as the interstate commerce clause. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/97 "2014-09-18T07:01:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s the catch. It’s called “in kind”, and the definition is so broad that allowing Congress to regulate such “donations” pretty much means they can regulate anything they want. It’s as broad as the interstate commerce clause. Except we’re not talking about some imaginary situation. All we want to do is turn the clock back on this issue to the way things were for the first two hundred years of this country’s history. Unless you’re saying nobody had any rights or freedom during that period, there’s no reason to say going back would take away all our rights and freedom. We just want to re-establish long-standing laws that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/98 "2014-09-18T07:04:02Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Who were the politicians who were having money donated to them in the Citizens United case and exactly how was the money being donated to them? You’re talking to the wrong guy. As I’ve said, I don’t think Citizens United was the important case on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/99 "2014-09-18T07:06:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Except we’re not talking about some imaginary situation. All we want to do is turn the clock back on this issue to the way things were for the first two hundred years of this country’s history. > > Unless you’re saying nobody had any rights or freedom during that period, there’s no reason to say going back would take away all our rights and freedom. We just want to re-establish long-standing laws that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That’s a little misleading. The extent of Congress’ power to regulate indirect donations was untested until 2001, when McCain-Feingold passed, much as Congress’ power to regulate candidates donating to their own campaigns was unknown until the 1976 Buckley decision. What the Udall amendment does is allow Congress to regulate any and all effective political speech from any source. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254/100 "2014-09-18T07:09:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re talking to the wrong guy. As I’ve said, I don’t think Citizens United was the important case on this issue. If the “money is speech” doctrine is the problem you’re having, then what is freedom of the press if not the use of expensive equipment to reach the masses? The only speech without money behind it is the speech you give on a street corner. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-love-for-the-democrats-constitutional-amendment/698254.md?page=6)