Dylan Ratigan begins laying the foundation of a Constitutional Amendment

[CleanGreenFuture]

which will seek to ban private contributions to political campaigns and institute public campaign financing of elections.

Dean Stockman adds that term limits should be a part of election reform.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#44165656

So, TV stunt or does this have any chance at a serious go?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. How do you prevent an individual from spending money of his own...

...to buy TV time and go there to say candidate A sucks and candidate B rules?

You could ban any broadcast of things that amount to campaigning. That may not be 1st-Amendment-friendly.

The Devil is in the details.

[brooklynite]

13. A Constitutional Amendement is a NEW Amendment...

...and presumptively supercedes older Amendments like the pesky 1st one...

[JDPriestly]

17. It would be better to pass an amendment stating that the FIrst Amendment rights of

corporations require a corporation to identify itself by the name under which it is incorported as the sponsor or author of any public communication.

That would solve a lot of problems. It would make it easier to identify the authors of a lot of fraudulent information out there about products, ideas, etc.

[brooklynite]

14. A Constitutional Amendement is a NEW Amendment...

...and presumptively supercedes older Amendments like the pesky 1st one...

[Occulus]

15. Constitutional Amendments are, by definition, Constitutional

and do not ever violate the Constitution. Or, actually, they do violate the Constitution, intentionally, and are inheretly Constitutional themselves.

I could- oh, and how I wish this could pass- write a Constitutional Amendment forbidding specifically Christian houses of worship from espousing any political opinion, and, if passed (if ONLY!), it would not run afoul of the First Amendment because it would amend the First Amendment. To wit:

Excepting houses of the Christian faith, Congress shall make no law, etc.

Would be Constitutional if passed as an Amendment.

[elleng]

2. IF ONLY. NO chance.

[montanacowboy]

3. Uh....is the fox going to unguard the henhouse?

it's a great idea, but remember who will be voting for it -
they are NOT going to cut their noses off to spite their ugly assed faces

[CleanGreenFuture]

8. What Ratigan is saying is that everybody knows politicians are bought. So, if

200 million Americans can be rallied to support an amendment to ban private political contributions, there would be pressure to get it done.

Sho would be an uphill battle regardless of support.

[LostInAnomie]

4. Not a chance

Elected officials have a love hate relationship with big donor cash. But, they know that without huge, prohibitive campaign war-chests they would be on equal footing with Joe Six-pack. They aren't going to risk that.

Term limits will never happen unless you elect a whole new crop of legislators on that platform. Congressman/Senator is too cushy of a job to legislate yourself out of.

[qb]

5. Something tells me a buttload of money would go into lobbying against it.

!
I do like the idea, however.

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. People today are too screwed up to be tampering with the Constitution.

If they can't do their normal business, what makes us think they can do something extraordinary like amending the Constituion any better?

We're safer with their grimey hands off of it.

[WinkyDink]

7. So. Much. Stunt. And term limits are anti-democractic (small "d").

[SoCalDem]

9. My wish forever

Term limits HAVE to be a part of it..

My plan:

2 terms per office

house 4 yr terms
senate 6 yr terms

NO PENSION unless they serve TWENTY CONSECUTIVE terms..

how's that possible?

house-house-senate-senate (or a combination)

any break of "service", means NO PENSION

NO LOBBYING allowed within FIVE years of end-of-term/service

FREE airtime for all qualified candidates, but NOT for negatives about the opponent.


modern tvs/cable companies etc can easily handle a channel for each party, and time could be doled out equally.

NO "ads"..just statements of their own platforms, ideas, plans

Without needing bazillions to buy airtime, there would not be the great need for massive amounts of cash. Direct donations should be available online with name and amount..immediately upon receipt.

NO OUT OF STATE/DISTRICT money allowed..

[JDPriestly]

18. Term limits are a terrible idea.

We have (or had) them in California.

Politicians just take one office after the other. And the newbies don't know what they are doing so they make lots of mistakes and waste a lot of time.

[CanonRay]

10. Keep it simple, the less words the better

or there will be loopholes the bigshot lawyers will exploit.

[theaocp]

11. Don't amendments have to go to the states for 2/3 majority

after making their way through Congress? Fucking tough uphill battle, but recced anyway. Go, Dylan!

[theaocp]

12. Dupe

[JDPriestly]

16. Good idea.

But very difficult to implement.

It will ultimately give even more power to the political organizations' top people.

How would you decide who gets the public money? How would a person get name recognition?

The idea is good, but small donations from individuals who identify themselves should be permitted.

I've done a lot of grass-roots campaigning.

Paper costs money.

Signs cost money.

Phone banks cost money.

There is no simple answer.

[LatteLibertine]

19. I'd say

we definitely need real campaign finance reform and term limits. Until that is done we're never going to reduce corruption well. IMO it's pretty much ground zero for dealing with that properly.