Sanders Files Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision

[MFrohike]

37. Fair point

Contributions is my go to when discussing money in politics. Mea culpa for typing it without thinking.

I know you agree with the ACLU. Great. I find their position to be dishonest and self-serving. I've read their arguments against constitutional amendments in this case and they are wrong where they aren't dishonest. They trot out a parade of horribles, like billionaires buying up news outlets, while ignoring the fact it's already happening. They've argued that an amendment, like the Udall one, will allow the courts to monkey around with free speech. That's particularly rich, given that they're busy defending exactly such a case. Points for audacity, ACLU.

So, it's cool to be a first amendment fundamentalist and all, but how do you balance the supposed right of non-human entities to spend at will to influence government with the right of the population to have a government that is neither corrupt in appearance nor in fact? Or do you feel that the right to corrupt outweighs the right to a responsive government without having to bribe?* I guess I want to know if you feel that the right to pay other people to speak for you is more important than the necessity of having a government that at least appears legitimate.

*Whether contributing directly or spending on a candidate's behalf, the primary reason is to influence the candidate. Given the definite benefits that accrue to a candidate in this position, it's accurate to describe it as bribery. It's trading money for influence.