See this poll on: https://poll.fm/7386581/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
send me all of the amendments when they are available.i don't want to miss any. thanks
send me all of the amendments when they are available.i don't want to miss any. thanks
Just give the the idiots free porno and cannabis and this campaign finance stupidity will go away because they'll be too busy jerking off.
The silent majority needs to speak up in real life! Many of us have fallen for the "I hate Congress but love my Congressman" type ideology. Those of you who live in districts (and states) that have polarizing, divisive or liar-type congresspersons and/or Senators should rally and vote the bastards out of office in their next election!! Some names off the top of my head would be: Pelosi, Boehner, Reid, McConnell, Durban, Paul, Bachmann, Cantor....ect....
Back to the founding fathers. Local people selecting their reprehensive who will vote the way the majority of their people want them to vote, not along party lines. Term limits will round it out because they won't have to worry about the next election. And lastly, they can't become lobbyist in their next life.
Return it to public service not cashing in.
We need to look at campaign finance laws, term limits for Congress, and also to rethink the Bill of Rights which have been subjectively degraded as of late e.g. Patriot Acts I&II.
How about: The Supreme Court may not equate money with speech. The most recent decision was an outrage, but nowhere near as much an outrage as the Buckley decision. I voted no because the proposed amendment is nowhere near restrictive enough
Mark Ferrer I say we need both. I want to see this out of control spending on campaigns halted, but it is also build on the premiss that serving in Congress is a right and a carer. Why not have the 28th Amendment limiting campaign donations and the 29th Amendment Limiting terms of less than four years to 6 terms and four and more to two, with NO possibility to run for the same office again.
I find it curious that most of the comments are from those that don't like the proposed amendment yet the voting statistics (as of this posting) are overwhelmingly in favor, reflecting a silent majority interested in fixing something that has clearly become a problem. Overall it is a microcosm of our current political climate.
We do not need this amendment...what we need is an amendment limiting the amount of time a person can spend in Congress. First, move the House to 4 year terms. They are required to spend too much time campaigning now. Second, limit time served in Congress. Two terms in the Senate or 3 in the House is plenty. (Or you could serve 2 terms on one side and one on the other) I had always been against term limits, but if you want to slow down the campaign contributions impact, make the candidates change more often.
a constitutional amendment is not needed.
the supreme court, could reverse it' s original decision, which was an aidiotic one at best--or congress could pass9I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH0 a new law that would have more teeth in limiting campaign contributions by pacs and wealthy individuals, likke the guy that makes his money in macao
a constitutional amendment is not needed.
the supreme court, could reverse it' s original decision, which was an aidiotic one at best--or congress could pass9I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH0 a new law that would have more teeth in limiting campaign contributions by pacs and wealthy individuals, likke the guy that makes his money in macao
This does nothing to stop the GOP, or the Democrat Party's, from taking in money and spending it on their candidates. Lawyers and politicians will find a way around most legislation. The best idea would be to give each candidate, chosen by their own party in primaries, each get $50 million from the government (similar to what Chris said). No other contributions. If individuals and corporations want to pay for ads promoting their candidate, so be it, but the messages should not be directly connected to any candidate and be about the positives of their candidate, not negatives about their opponents. Plus, the Internet is free and the candidates and their party's could utilize the Internet any way they please, so long as their supports are identified. This could work well and I believe people will more likely come out and support their candidate, locally and regionally., as well more people will feel their vote counts.
I can not understand why they need need campaign financeing anyway.If they choose to run for office,then they should use there own funds.Then we would know that their not being bought.They should have to disclose all funds they are useing and from what accounts.It use to be any one could run if you are an American,born and raised here.Now it seems only the rich can run with backing from more rich people,which comes to the point our vote does not count.The electorial votes are what they count.
with the electronic media age we are in, why do they even need a budget? Internet media is available to get a candidates platform out to everyone. If a stupid video of a cat or whatever can go viral to millions then so can video footage of a candidate and their stance on issues.
There is a problem with this Amendment. How do you ensure that campains and issues are treated fairly and equally in the media?
The policy positions of those currently financing campaigns makes tax reform impossible. Who wants to watch all those ridiculous campaign ads anyway.
I voted yes just because anything is better than nothing and the base of most of our country's problems involve campaign finance. The only reason I considered not voting for it is that the measures didn't go far enough.
That one has not to date voted does not preclude one from voting, present or future. To preclude citizens not registered to vote from contributing to political campaigns would certainly be found unconstitutional in the courts, therefore I cannot support the amendment as written.
This amendment is astonishingly foolish.
What happens if I give money to people belore they run? Are all gifts to anyone forbidden at any time?
If we do forbid any human from ever giving anything of value to another, how would we control payments for "services" before an announced candidacy?
And even if we could prevent every political exchange outside an election, would you really want the entire field to be populated with existing billionaires? Bloomberg and Koch for president, anyone?
How about an actual disclosure requirement instead?
I agree, no corporations, union, and especially super-pacs, should have a role in our campaigns.
We have term limits it is called vote them out of office.
I approve of 1,2 and 4, but don't understand number 3. Basically this should fix the 'Citizens United' mess.
I agree with Howard about setting term limits. Let them serve the term they were elected to and then send them home with no lifetime pension to work like the rest of us to earn a pension.
I dont think it will work properly because the corporations will get their ceo,s to donate millions and then give them a million $$$$$ bonus ,the little guy will still be out. They will find another way around with$$$$$$ lawyers, but this is better than letting china or other countries buy our politicians.so I vote yes.
As long as they write the amendment it will not work
We need term limits also. Throw the rascals out. None of them have any respect for the people they are supposed to represent. They only care about the dollars they can get from the special interest groups that shower them with money. Vote against anyone in office, from DC right down to the local level in your town. A hamster would be more honest than the people we have now. Having said all that, nothing will be done because they make the rules, not us.
This proposal is too restrictive and too narrow.
It would be wonderful to see this enacted; today we have the worst Congress in the world, the best money can buy and with enough you can buy it all. A second amendment would be that bribery is a form of treason punishable by death.
I agree with Sherry. get the big money out. We need to make it known they work for us, and needs to start now doing so.
While we desperately need campaign reform, limiting it to only registered voters is un-American. Many people don't want to vote but do make contributions to political (even if unintended) causes. We need to get the big money (corporations) out of our political system. They are not people.
Until we stop allowing our elected officials to be purchased on the open market, we will not get our government back.
I had to reject this, though it is very good a 2nd option. I think that a $75 million budget for each presidential candidate (including an equal share for Green and Libertarian candidates) with no other donations period would be the best option.
Get big money out. Than we can get back to where the house will work their 5 days instead of 3. We pay then for 5 days let them work it.