HR 20-17: Democracy Is Not For Sale Amendment (Passed)

[Poirot]

Why corporate but not union?

Could this be resolved by removing the word corporate in the explanation, maybe by third party spending ?

[Poirot]

Is the explanation part working like a regular bill, if we want to amend we have to propose an amendment and vote on it ?

The word corporate could lead to confusion, some might think it's for private companies but if I understand it's for all kind of organizations.

[Poirot]

proposing an amendment to clarify the explanation. Some might think corporate spending is only private business, so I am proposing third party spending instead.

AN AMENDMENT
to the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia

Be it enacted by both houses of Congress, assembled:

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Amendment shall be, the "Democracy Is Not For Sale Amendment."

Section 2 (Amendment)
i. Article III§6(i) of the Fourth Constitution is amended to read as follows:

The Congress shall have the power, except where limited elsewhere by this Constitution, [. . .]
xvi. To regulate independent expenditures for political communication.

Explanation:

This amendment would overturn the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by allowing Congress to regulate corporate third party spending in political campaigns.

[Poirot]

Your proposal would make it legal to limit these organizations to only spending $1.00 per election.

I wanted to know if this could legally happen. If the constitution has a right for third party spending  and Congress could regulate this but not eliminate it. I mean it could be restrictions but allowing a respectable spending limit (not a few dollars only).

[Poirot]

nay

[Poirot]

Nay

I vote Nay because I had no answer about 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.

[Poirot]

Your proposal would make it legal to limit these organizations to only spending $1.00 per election.

I wanted to know if this could legally happen. If the constitution has a right for third party spending  and Congress could regulate this but not eliminate it. I mean it could be restrictions but allowing a respectable spending limit (not a few dollars only).

That's a power that Congress should have IMO if it were to choose, at least from a constitutional standpoint.

Limiting spending to 1$ for example could be seen as stopping freedom of speech.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, nor of the press, nor withholding the freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition for the redress of grievances."

[Poirot]

Fails 4-2 (needed 6).

Let me re-introduce this using my own slot and same thread.

Even if a bill is presented again, shouldn't the number be changed ? I think it should start in another thread anf have the minimum debate time.