HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Kucinich Announces ‘Game ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:49 PM

 

Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections

Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections




Congressman Kucinich


Washington, Jan 19 -

On the eve of the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgate of unlimited, shadowy corporate spending in public elections, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced H. J. Res. 100, a constitutional amendment to rescue American democracy from corporate money’s corrupting influence.

“Because of the decision by the Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case, more money was spent on campaigns in the 2010 election than has ever been spent in a mid-term election.

“Because of the Citizens United case, more money will be spent in the 2012 elections than has ever been spent in an election in the history of our country.

“Because of the Citizens United case, American democracy has been put up on the auction block,” said Kucinich.

Read more: http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=275443

47 replies, 8419 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections (Original post)
Bennyboy Jan 2012 OP
alp227 Jan 2012 #1
msongs Jan 2012 #4
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #22
Lance_Boyle Jan 2012 #29
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #46
Trillo Jan 2012 #2
Justice wanted Jan 2012 #3
Mr_Jefferson_24 Jan 2012 #10
emilyg Jan 2012 #15
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #21
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #34
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #47
Tiggeroshii Jan 2012 #44
ChadwickHenryWard Jan 2012 #30
markpkessinger Jan 2012 #5
WCGreen Jan 2012 #6
Rhiannon12866 Jan 2012 #7
Javaman Jan 2012 #8
brooklynite Jan 2012 #9
Occulus Jan 2012 #12
kenfrequed Jan 2012 #17
eomer Jan 2012 #19
Auggie Jan 2012 #26
fascisthunter Jan 2012 #27
LanternWaste Jan 2012 #32
Maven Jan 2012 #33
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #35
Mr_Jefferson_24 Jan 2012 #11
limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #13
mwrguy Jan 2012 #14
Hugabear Jan 2012 #36
Octafish Jan 2012 #16
Norrin Radd Jan 2012 #18
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #20
onenote Jan 2012 #41
closeupready Jan 2012 #23
trumad Jan 2012 #24
RufusTFirefly Jan 2012 #38
bemildred Jan 2012 #25
fascisthunter Jan 2012 #28
naaman fletcher Jan 2012 #31
The Sushi Bandit Jan 2012 #37
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #39
onenote Jan 2012 #40
hughee99 Jan 2012 #43
ColesCountyDem Jan 2012 #42
usrname Jan 2012 #45

Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:59 PM

1. meanwhile Obama hasn't proposed anything like this

other than his criticism of the citizens united case in his 2010 SOTU, as Cenk pointed out here (6:30)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:36 PM

4. he will likely benefit from citizens united, why would he complain lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:19 AM

22. That's bass-ackwards.

 


The Corporations don't want Obama, they want Republicans. CU works against Obama. This season will prove that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 10:11 AM

29. Some corporations want R, some want D.

 

Rs and Ds both want corporate money. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that big money owns both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lance_Boyle (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:14 PM

46. Recognizing that Republicans do more for corporations than Democrats

 

isn't brain science either. DAH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:00 PM

2. The sad thing is how much damage has been done since the railroad decisions.

It's always said better late than never, but one would hope there's a *timeout* on these things. In politics, it appears the timeout is in the range of nearly 100 years, a period of time in excess of 1 person's entire life.

What's a few generations in the whole-sales of a people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:00 PM

3. Dennis is one of the Few "Career" politician WHO actually work for the People WE need more people

like him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice wanted (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:39 PM

10. So true. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice wanted (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:22 PM

15. One of my favorites - so few.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice wanted (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:14 AM

21. It's too bad he's not President

 

so he could push for legislation, get stonewalled, fight a gigantic battle over it, get nothing else done, wind up compromising just to get something, and then get called a 'sell-out' by half of DU.

Ah, what a different world it would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JackRiddler (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:21 PM

47. Yeah, pretty much.

 


We are very much in a 'Jesus Wept' situation.

What? Did you really believe the President actually has the power to change the status quo? Do you also still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:26 PM

44. He would be a very short president...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice wanted (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 10:24 AM

30. Unfortunately, he is likely going to lose his seat in the primaries.

The GOP has redrawn the districts in Ohio in order to pit Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur against one another in the primaries. Kaptur has a large fundraising advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:45 PM

5. Sadly, it's chances of ultimate passage are slim to none n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:50 PM

6. I mean I love the bravado of one Dennis Kucinich...

I was there when he resurrected his career back in 1994, we shared a ballot spot so I got to know him very well.

The night that he won his election to the House was the same night I lost my bid for the State Senate. The next day, when all the media in Cleveland wanted to talk to him, he sat with me in a hospital room being there for a mutual friend who just was told he was going to die of cancer.

But the reality of Dennis is that he is the best council man serving in Congress. The man is a treasurer to the people in Cleveland not because of what he brings home but because he sees his main function as a politician is to help the people who got him there. He has the best constituent service bare none.

But the idea of Game Changer and Dennis Kucinich is a little over the top

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WCGreen (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:09 PM

7. Thanks so much for sharing your personal story.

I have long been an admirer of Dennis Kucinich. His views most closely match my own and he has to be the most hard working and courageous member of Congress. And whether he's natioally electable, or not, his outspokenness gets the issues out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:13 PM

8. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:15 PM

9. Wake me up when a Constitutional Amendment like this is likely to pass...

Until then it's posturing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:43 PM

12. Any Amendment like this one could only pass a People's Convention

and there are some fairly major hurdles to calling one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:24 AM

17. Get behind it

Wake up now and get behind it and start agitating for it.

If you want it, stand up for it, if you don't then just say so and stop with the sunday morning armchair wonking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:30 AM

19. Susan B. Anthony did a lot of "posturing".

She fought for decades for women's right to vote but died before the 19th amendment was "likely to pass". She did a lot of "posturing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:19 AM

26. Posturing? Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:21 AM

27. well, how about supporting it instead of shitting on it

unless you don't want the ammendment that is. Right now, you are the ONLY one posturing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:37 PM

32. I imagine we often confuse "posturing" with...

I imagine we often confuse "posturing" with a declaration of intent and a statement of belief if it allows us to better minimize that person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:40 PM

33. You're right - there might be opposition so we shouldn't even try. It's the Obama way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:42 PM

35. Nah, that's okay - you can stay in bed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:41 PM

11. K&R. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:57 PM

13. rec'd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:59 PM

14. Dennis should be POTUS

He's a real liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:22 PM

36. How about Grayson/Kucinich in 2016?

Don't know if that ticket would win, but it's one I think many of us could vote for without any reservations at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:03 AM

16. And what? Make elections democratic?

What would be next? Equal justice for all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:31 AM

18. kr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:22 AM

20. Nice thought, but I don't know how it would work

The SCOTUS has ruled in favor of free speech for big money. If we fund all campaigns with public funds, how would that stop big money from making and broadcasting attack ads? Hey, it's my money, my opinion, who has the right to stop me from airing my views? Right? (Y'know, I mean, if I had any money )

And if the ads and superpacs can somehow be stopped, it seems the same logic/law could be used to stop any broadcast of opinion, such as blogs, DU forums, etc. Grovelbot could be seen as just another Koch brother.

I expect the superpac ads to get even worse. When specialized ads are "made for cable", the seven words will fly around candidates. F-bombs, B-bombs, C-bombs, etc will be hitting the screens. Or maybe they're already in Carolina and Florida.

I hate superpacs but I like free speech. I think this one's a puzzle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:40 PM

41. I'm not a big fan of the government limiting my speech either

and DK, by overreaching with his language, would do exactly that. No one -- individuals as well as corporations -- would be permitted to make contributions to a candidate and, more importantly, no one could spend a cent of their own money in support of a candidate. Literally, if you made a sign and stuck it in your yard, you'd be in violation of the language of DK's amendment. If some private company made bumper stickers or buttons saying vote for X and sold them (with none of the money going to the candidate) and you put one on your car or your shirt -- again, you'd have violated the terms of this amendment which states that "no expenditures shall be permitted" in support or opposition of any candidate "from any other source .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:56 AM

23. HUGE K&R. Go, Dennis!

This strikes really at the heart of most of what's wrong with Congress and DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:57 AM

24. Im curious ..

How many bills has DK written, cosponsored and passed in Congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:40 PM

38. I'm curious, too

Why is it that out of 535 members of Congress, there is only one member who consistently and courageously speaks up on behalf of ordinary people?

And why is he routinely vilified and ridiculed for doing so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:02 AM

25. Elections are much too important to allow them to be bought. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:22 AM

28. K&R (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:58 AM

31. Because of Citizens United?

 

“Because of the Citizens United case, American democracy has been put up on the auction block,"

It was up on the auction block long before that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:03 PM

37. Go Dennis Go!

You da man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:52 PM

39. Awesome. The wind is against him, but I glad he leads anyways. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:22 PM

40. Exactly how would this key language from DK's amendment work?

Section 2. No expenditures shall be permitted in support of any candidate for Federal office, or in opposition to any candidate for Federal office, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.


Does this mean that if you or I make a home made sign supporting our candidate and take it to a rally or post it in our front yard that we've violated the law by making an "expenditure" in support of a candidate?

And exactly how broad is the exception that protects freedom of the press? What constitutes the press and how does one distinguish it from others who engage in speech (even when engaging in that speech involves an expenditure of funds by way of buying paper and ink to make a sign or driving around in a truck with a microphone saying Vote for....)?

The concept of federally funded elections is something I wholeheartedly support. But at the same time, I recognize that there are considerable difficulties in moving from concept to reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:25 PM

43. This sounds a lot like rather than having elections determined by a bunch of corporations

and their unlimited money, it will instead be determined by the few corporations who own media outlets. No one else can run any commercials? So the Candidate is at the mercy of whatever the press decides to cover, to not cover, or how it portrays a campaign issue? I'm not so sure this is a good plan either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:05 PM

42. Amending the Constitution isn't needed.

Congress can simply remove such matters from the SC's jurisdiction, as would be their right so to do under Article I of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:38 PM

45. I'd like to see Kucinich go one better

 

Require all candidates for ALL levels (local, statewide, national) to campaign following the same prescribed format:

1. Candidate must announce the office (s)he is campaigning for
2. Give proof of eligibility: age, city and state of residence, place of birth
3. ONE PAGE resume (includes party affiliation if necessary)
4. Five 2-minute "ads" explaining the person's platform and positions
5. Five 2-minute "ads" explaining how the person will govern (follow party
line, legislate according to need, etc)

There should be no campaigning whatsoever. That means, no signs on front yard,
no commercials, no third-party ads to promote or denigrate candidate or opponents.

Anyone creating an ad in favor of, or in opposition to, a candidate will cause the candidate who it will ultimately benefit to be removed from consideration. If it's determined after the election, that the candidate, now office holder, benefitted from the ad, will be removed from office and the second-highest vote getter will take over. (This is to prevent someone from framing the other candidate by creating a "bad" ad of him or herself. On the other hand, a "bad" ad could generate enough negative feelings to the candidate and that might self-sabotage the campaign.)

Campaigns should be like a job application: fill the job-application form, submit resume, conduct an interview (here, the applicant can just submit his or her side of the interview, we the electorate don't need to actually go interview the person). We'll call you, don't call us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread