Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
24. It could.
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 07:36 PM
Nov 2014

With this amendment (and under all of the amendments that have been proposed to counter Citizens United), in theory, Congress could pass a law which would effectively muzzle both DU and Planned Parenthood in the six months prior to an election. The hope would be, of course, that Congress would not use their newly acquired powers in such a drastic fashion and instead would pass laws that provided for reasonable limits on political expenditures by corporations, with the limits being large enough that DU and Planned Parenthood would not be affected.

This is a potential issue in all countries that do not have a First Amendment (which means pretty much all countries other than the US, AFAIK). The British Parliament could pass a law banning all political websites (including DU) from operating during an election campaign, but the backlash that such a law would provoke would prevent them from doing this (one would hope).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Would it include PAC's and labor unions? badtoworse Nov 2014 #1
No, I was trying to word it to only affect corporations (nt) Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #2
Then I wouldn't support it. badtoworse Nov 2014 #5
Fair enough (nt) Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #8
Most unions I'm familiar with Sgent Nov 2014 #29
Sounds like YarnAddict Nov 2014 #30
Citizens United needs to be TBF Nov 2014 #3
I'm not sure what you mean by "overturned in its entirety". Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #6
I'll stick with Move to Amend. nt Ykcutnek Nov 2014 #4
Their proposed amendment would allow cops to raid Planned Parenthood clinics, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #7
No, just say that only natural-born persons have any political rights whatsoever. nt bemildred Nov 2014 #9
By "political rights" do you mean "constitutional rights"? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #10
I mean the right to participate in politics. bemildred Nov 2014 #11
I would prefer the amendment to state that elections should be publicly funded. Calista241 Nov 2014 #12
+1. And make it a holiday. If we can celebrate the 4th of July, we can celebrate voting. nt bemildred Nov 2014 #14
An amendment stating "elections should be publicly funded" would not reverse Citizens United. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #16
It doesn't go far enough meow2u3 Nov 2014 #13
Yeah, I like that too. You'd think it was obvious. nt bemildred Nov 2014 #15
Again, why strip away all of the constitutional protections of corporations, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #17
So rights shouldn't extend to legal entities? Algernon Moncrieff Nov 2014 #19
Personhood shouldn't extend to legal entities nt meow2u3 Nov 2014 #20
As long as it is applied equally, I don't have a problem with it. Algernon Moncrieff Nov 2014 #21
I'd support a Congress who would pass a law to that effect... Algernon Moncrieff Nov 2014 #18
The issue with (A) is that there is nothing for the Supreme Court to enforce. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #22
#5 doesn't go far enough. Get rid of the 2A Ampersand Unicode Nov 2014 #25
How would this amendment not subject an LLC like DU or an entity such as Planned Parenthood tritsofme Nov 2014 #23
It could. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #24
I'm very wary of speech restrictions. tritsofme Nov 2014 #26
No. Too vague and arbitrary bluestateguy Nov 2014 #27
This amendment would enable Congress to impose monetary limits on corporate speech, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Would you support this co...»Reply #24