ATTN ATLASIA: The Democracy is Not For Sale Amendment has passed Congress

[Poirot]

I have a question about this amendment. When the debate started on this I was cautious on approving this in case it would make it legal for legislators to set rules to in effect ban third party spending.

Quote from: Poirot on October 22, 2019, 04:29:41 pm

the issue raised of possibility and legality of limiting speanding to ridiculously low amount, only symbolic likee 1$, so I prefer to be cautious and not vote for something to later find out it authorized something I didn't know.

I don't think spending should be a free for all but I think groups have the right to be heard. I don't mind limits if they are fair. Is there a definite answer if this amendment would legalize setting a ridiculously low amount of spending that would equal a near ban ?

[cinyc]

I have a question about this amendment. When the debate started on this I was cautious on approving this in case it would make it legal for legislators to set rules to in effect ban third party spending.

Quote from: Poirot on October 22, 2019, 04:29:41 pm

the issue raised of possibility and legality of limiting speanding to ridiculously low amount, only symbolic likee 1$, so I prefer to be cautious and not vote for something to later find out it authorized something I didn't know.

I don't think spending should be a free for all but I think groups have the right to be heard. I don't mind limits if they are fair. Is there a definite answer if this amendment would legalize setting a ridiculously low amount of spending that would equal a near ban ?

Well, it's poorly drafted and amends the wrong provision of the constitution - so arguably, it does nothing at all. But to the extent it does, MB already answered this question - theoretically a government could limit independent expenditures to $0. He claims Congress would never do that, but I'm never so certain about that.