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

[cinyc]

I'm looking forward to opposing this. I have no confidence in any government - let alone a unitary Labor one - not using this amendment to crush its opposition and bar free speech. No thanks.

Vote Nay.

[cinyc]

I'm looking forward to opposing this. I have no confidence in any government - let alone a unitary Labor one - not using this amendment to crush its opposition and bar free speech. No thanks.

Vote Nay.

If you care so much why don't you actually run for office in the South and try and change things.

I can't change this by running for office in the South. It's not in the South's jurisdiction.

I just declared a run for Atlasia House of Representatives, though, where I can stop something like this from happening again.

I also can sue if this actually gets ratified and implemented - and just might - because it's very poorly drafted and doesn't even do what it claims to do.

[cinyc]

I think that elections must be decided by the strength of candidates' ideas and how well they'd do their job, not based on how much various special interests like them. When people donate huge amounts of money to a campaign, that politician is gonna be very friendly to the interests of whatever business or industry the money is coming from. That is corruption. This amendment paves the way for proper regulation of campaign finance and I'm confident that the Atlasian people will be wise and pass this amendment.

This amendment has nothing to do with regulating campaign spending, but “independent expenditures” - i.e. me and my neighbors banding our money together to speak out against the government. That can be banned. Even newspapers could be banned - or worse - exempted from the regulations that would otherwise affect us little people.

That assumes this actually works as drafted, which is does not, anyway.

Vote no.

[cinyc]

I think that elections must be decided by the strength of candidates' ideas and how well they'd do their job, not based on how much various special interests like them. When people donate huge amounts of money to a campaign, that politician is gonna be very friendly to the interests of whatever business or industry the money is coming from. That is corruption. This amendment paves the way for proper regulation of campaign finance and I'm confident that the Atlasian people will be wise and pass this amendment.

This amendment has nothing to do with regulating campaign spending, but “independent expenditures” - i.e. me and my neighbors banding our money together to speak out against the government. That can be banned. Even newspapers could be banned - or worse - exempted from the regulations that would otherwise affect us little people.

That assumes this actually works as drafted, which is does not, anyway.

Vote no.

You spoke about this as an issue for little people, but by definition, unregulated money in politics is not in the interests of the little people because they have significantly less money. Any money that a group of concerned citizens can contribute will be peanuts compared to any big money interests can contribute to their causes. And consistently, the result has been that politicians care much more about what the ultra-wealthy and other special interests want, and not what is in the interests of the country. This is a recipe for corruption and inefficient government which works in favour of a small number of people who have a few million dollars in spare change they can spend trying to get their way.

This has nothing to do with free speech and freedom of the press, which is still constitutionally protected. Its just that if you are the CEO of a major company and you want certain politicians elected, you are gonna have to fight on the strength of your arguments instead of just bankrolling their campaigns.

Can a government pass a law saying I can’t band my money with my neighbors to criticize the government? If this were properly drafted, absolutely - there are zero limits on what Congress could call an independent expenditure or limit. They could stop ANYONE from spending one cent to oppose their tyrannical rule. You, as a politician would not be subject to it, but me, as a little guy, would be.  That’s not fair.

Could they shut down partisan newspapers as “independent expenditures?” Again - absolutely - nothing but the poor drafting of this amendment (which renders it toothless) could stop them. That’s not fair.

Why should I give you politicians this power?

Preserve your right to free speech against a tyrannical government.

Vote no.

[cinyc]

Is the CEO of a multi-million dollar company a little person? Because that is the reality. The vast majority of money in politics and the influence it has doesn't come from concerned citizens like you, it comes from people with a lot of money who want their lackeys to do them favours. Just know that this is the elephant in the room that must be addressed.

If you are concerned about unaccountable governments, then you should be supporting this amendment. Part of why politicians are so unaccountable to people is because their funding comes from big business. Once there are stronger regulations on where political campaigns get their money from, politicians will have to rely on ordinary people more for fundraising and will have to listen to their concerns.

Any regulation of money in politics would affect critics and supporters of the government alike.

The CEO of a million-dollar company has as much a right to free speech as I do. And I have no issue with them contributing whatever they want to get their independent message across. It's a free county - or at least, it's supposed to be. I'm very concerned that it won't be once a tyrannical government shuts down all dissent.

And no, any regulation of money in politics wouldn't affect supporters of the government. Like I said, this does nothing to curtail POLITICIAN'S right to fundraise or speech, just "independent expenditures" - i.e. us little folks who don't have a soapbox.

This is a terrible amendment for a number of reasons - in part because you're amending the wrong part of the constitution and it doesn't even do what you advertise it does. But mainly because it allows a tyrannical government to stiffle my free speech.

Vote no.

[cinyc]

Is the CEO of a multi-million dollar company a little person? Because that is the reality. The vast majority of money in politics and the influence it has doesn't come from concerned citizens like you, it comes from people with a lot of money who want their lackeys to do them favours. Just know that this is the elephant in the room that must be addressed.

If you are concerned about unaccountable governments, then you should be supporting this amendment. Part of why politicians are so unaccountable to people is because their funding comes from big business. Once there are stronger regulations on where political campaigns get their money from, politicians will have to rely on ordinary people more for fundraising and will have to listen to their concerns.

Any regulation of money in politics would affect critics and supporters of the government alike.

The CEO of a million-dollar company has as much a right to free speech as I do. And I have no issue with them contributing whatever they want to get their independent message across. It's a free county - or at least, it's supposed to be. I'm very concerned that it won't be once a tyrannical government shuts down all dissent.

And no, any regulation of money in politics wouldn't affect supporters of the government. Like I said, this does nothing to curtail POLITICIAN'S right to fundraise or speech, just "independent expenditures" - i.e. us little folks who don't have a soapbox.

This is a terrible amendment for a number of reasons - in part because you're amending the wrong part of the constitution and it doesn't even do what you advertise it does. But mainly because it allows a tyrannical government to stiffle my free speech.

Vote no.

If you’ve got thousands of dollars lying around to give to political campaigns you’ve got enough of a soapbox already. This won’t affect small contributions.

Nothing in the amendment says that it won't affect small contributions. Congress could ban all independent contributions. And, as an Independent, funding party politicians doesn't cut it.

Vote No.

[cinyc]

Theoretically Congress could tax all Atlasians at 100% of their income right now. Is the constitution communist?

The power to tax is the power to destroy. A 100% income tax would likely be unconstitutional. Under what you think you proposed, a 100% ban on independent expenditures would not.

[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.