Reason Roundup

Senate Democrats Back Constitutional Amendment to Undo Citizens United

Plus: Marijuana banking, suing Facebook, and more...


Democrats are trying to amend the constitution to undo a Supreme Court decision. The ruling they take issue with is 2010's Citizens United v. FEC, which lets corporations engage in political speech without facing extreme regulation.

Last week, the entire Senate Democratic Caucus introduced a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United. In 2014 "we reported this amendment to the floor," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) during a July 30 press conference. "What happened to it? A McConnell filibuster happened to it….With a new leader by the name of Schumer in the Senate, we can be sure that it won't be a filibuster stopping us."

Yesterday, one of those senators put the spotlight on the crusade. "Citizens United has damaged our democracy and allowed corporate money to flood our politics," claimed the California senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris on Twitter. (Harris herself has received lots of corporate cash, though she's recently been going back and forth on whether she'll keep taking it.) "We can't allow this to continue—which is why my colleagues and I introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn this terrible Supreme Court decision," she added.

Harris and company are continuing Hillary Clinton's crusade. Back in 2016, Clinton suggested "that the real problem with that decision is that it did not permit the legal barring of a documentary critical of her," as Reason's Brian Doherty wrote. Clinton complained the critical film should have been banned around election time (under a 2002 law disallowing corporations and labor unions from making "electioneering communication" in the days or months leading up to an election) "because the legal entity behind it was organized as a corporation."

That gets to a crucial point about "corporations": They're not all massive behemoths or big money spenders. Small and sometimes single-person businesses, nonprofit groups, activist organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and all sorts of entities that liberals like are organized as corporations, and as such benefit from the right to be public about political matters without powerful elites shutting them down.

Democrats pretend that ending Citizens United is about restoring transparency and fairness to political speech. But what sort of transparency and fairness prohibits vast swaths of its organized advocacy and community groups from talking about candidates and campaign issues at the very time when they're most important? Behind the rhetoric about "dark money" and "corporate influence," what this "reform" would do is to strip speech rights from all sorts of citizens—and let politicians hoard power over political narratives themselves. (See also: "Our Presidential Cycle Shows Why Citizens United Was Decided Rightly" and "The Citizens United Backlash Threatens Basic Rights.")



Marijuana-business banking bill hits a snag. Sen. Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), who heads up the Senate's banking committee, says he's down with overhauling certain rules so that marijuana businesses can bank. But Crapo rejects the existing bill being supported by a bipartisan, bi-chamber congressional crew. The Secure and Fair Enforcement Act is "being cosponsored by nearly a third of the body," reports Marijuana Moment. However, "Crapo floated the idea that his chamber might instead pursue separate legislation or even seek an administrative fix for the issue rather than pass a bill."


  • Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) says she has "a lot of common ground with many libertarian viewpoints."
  • The latest scapegoat for mass shootings is reefer madness:

  • While claiming it doesn't investigate ideologies, only actions, the FBI targeted what it calls "black identity extremists" with a program called IRON FIST:

NEXT: The U.S. Shouldn't Play Endless Whac-A-Mole in Syria

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While claiming it doesn't investigate ideologies, only actions, the FBI targeted what it calls "black identity extremists" with a program called IRON FIST:

    i don't see what piling up firsts on morning roundups has to do black identity extremists

    1. Mrs. Fist is complaining that he's a little rusty.

      1. But hard as ever.

        1. Morning fist?

      2. I thought that's what Fist said to Mrs. Fist, after she failed to inform him of certain calendrical events.

    2. Hello.

      Democrats are awful.

    3. So Danny Rand has been captured and reprogrammed by HYDRA?

      1. Power Man will save him.

        1. Maybe an opportunity for Shang-Chi to make a guest appearance for a team up?

    4. I don't like being maligned on my day off.

      1. Reason gives you days off?

        1. Such men dare take what they want.

  2. So why don't senate democrats bring an amendment to repeal the second? It is the only legal and finally effective to achieve 'gun control'.

    1. Sheesh, L -- there's no need to "amend" a Living Constitution!

      1. haha thread winner here.

      2. ^^^This!

    2. I favor a constitutional amendment to ban democrats from doing democrat stuff. Like treason. Which is primarily what democrats do.

  3. Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) says she has "a lot of common ground with many libertarian viewpoints."

    however, she just keeps asking "are you allowed to plant that?"

  4. Shouldn't warren say hes done it with a whistle only her and Democrats can hear? Or is she claiming white supremacists and Democrats are the same?

    1. Remember: pretending to be Native American for 30 years to advance one's career is not racist, but saying mean things is. Because politics.

  5. "Pot is proven to trigger mental illness in the young or genetically susceptible. Mental illness among young Americans is sharply on the rise as pot is decriminalised and use increases. Most mass shooters are mentally ill. Join the dots."

    "Shit is brown, and you are brown, therefore you are shit."

    1. Join the dots.

      "Connect" is the word she wants there. Connect the dots. If you join dots, all you have is one big dot.

      1. BIG DOT 2020

        1. problematic

      2. Not at all like "join the Navy"

        1. Or the Royal Nay-Vee.........

    2. She should hook up with Congressman Crapo.

      1. Now, Chipper ....

    3. It’s not the color you are, it’s the color you identify with that matters.

      For example, AOC is white, but she identifies as brown.

  6. How did roundup miss the two precious gaffes from our national treasure Biden? He proved he doesnt thinks facts are truthful and that he is racist.

    1. He isn't racist. He just thinks the only poor people are dark skinned folks. Totes different.

    2. To be honest, if you've ever given speeches you know you made a few flubs, tangled syntax, mispronounced words, or stuttered.
      Do you really think Gerald Ford didn't know about the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe or Obama believed there were 57 states?
      So cut Joe and Donald and the rest of them a break. They say quite enough asinine stuff without roasting them for their gaffes.

      1. I give customer presentations often. Dont reach even close to the level of misstatements of Uncle Joe.

        But at least we found the Biden fan.

        1. No Biden fan, but have made enough gaffes of my own running for office or making presentations to appreciate how sometimes are
          less than silver-tongued orators.

          1. Did they all trend in one direction? Biden has made a lot of racist sounding gaffes in his day.

            1. If black people don't vote for Biden it probably has more to do with his crime bill in the 90s than any gaffe.

  7. He's done the wink and a nod,

    what about the rub the side of your nose with your index finger indicating that you're about to fleece a 1930s chicago gangster who, by the way, is white.

    1. Italians were the original brown skins.

      1. Fuckin' guineas

        1. PS - I'm half "fuckin' mick" so there's that

          1. We guessed from the potato.

            1. But he is only 50% potato.

              1. Just like Pringles

          2. how do you half fuck a mick? You either fuck or ya don't, there's no inbetween

    2. Or the tickle and slap.

      1. Michael Avenatti is on the search for that tape.

    3. Italians are often darker than many Americans who identify as “African American” or “colored”.

  8. We have a strong contender in both the "Empty Lefty Gesture" and "Lame Grandstanding" competitions:

    "Newsletter: This Bay Area city will keep flags at half-staff until Congress passes gun control legislation "
    "...But 12 days ago, a gunman opened fire, with a military-style semiautomatic rifle that is illegal to own in California, at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, killing three people 100 miles southwest of his city. And then came El Paso. And then Dayton.
    Like many Americans, Phillips felt frustrated and hamstrung to make change. “I see Congress right now doing nothing,” he said over the phone. “So finally, I just got fed up with it.”
    At Monday’s City Council meeting, Phillips declared that the Marin County city would be keeping its flags at half-staff until Congress takes significant action on gun control...."

    Oh, how 'Marin' of him!

      1. I will also remain at half mast until something is done.

        1. We have a new contestant!

    1. I bet all those congress critters are absolutely outraged at the current flag hoisting situation in Marin County, and will immediately cave to the pressure applied by deployment of improperly hoisted flags by unanimously passing strict new unconstitutional firearms legislation.

      1. I'll bet every congress-creature has heard from many constituents about the continuing crisis of those flags at half-staff!

    2. So the characters in Big Little Lies are based on real people...

    3. What is concerning... Hyping 'body armor' or the last shooter and non-shooter. I expect it will be the next item on the banned list. Only terrorists would need body armor...

  9. The founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer has been ordered by a federal judge to pay $14 million in damages in a harassment lawsuit.

    Not $6 million for symbolic reasons?

    1. Steve Austin was a Nazi??

      I guess that explains how he could beat up Bigfoot.



    2. Misek:
      That's not true!

      1. +1

    3. Harassment...1st Amendment

      What's the difference as long as people with wrong think are destroyed.

      1. I wish they would at least apply this consistently. But corporate media seem to be strangely exempted from this kind of liability, because if you’re a multi-billion dollar corporation, you should be able to destroy lives at will!

  10. "Senate Democrats Back Constitutional Amendment to Undo Citizens United"

    Must be an election year.

    The Democrats' open hostility to free speech is duly noted.

    I generally avoid voting when I can, but the Democrats openly advocating socialism by way of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All already made not voting really hard to do. If the Democrats go all-in against freedom of speech, that might make it impossible.

    In the wake of a mass shooting, the Republicans (in Congress) have been pretty good on gun control.

    Yes, the Democrats could be pursuing things that are even worse, but just judging by what they're doing, rather than what they haven't done--do the Democrats have any redeeming qualities at all?

    Being willing to throw free speech under the bus to score points in an election year makes them even more revolting. I'm so glad my fellow libertarians wouldn't throw their principles away in the pursuit of some short sighted goal to score a few political points.

    1. do the Democrats have any redeeming qualities at all?

      Excellent debate question.

      "Firstly, we feel that we are compassionate and helpful."

    2. Ken...I think you and I know this goes nowhere. Too many process hoops here.

      Two-thirds vote in the House
      Two-thirds vote in the Senate
      Ratification by 38 states

      This is not going to happen for repealing Citizens United. It just isn't.

      1. It's all signaling, but to the extent that signalling matters, what are they signaling--that they're openly hostile to free speech when it serves their purposes? That isn't a good reason to vote for them.

        1. Do LLCs and partnerships pass the "corporate speech bad" test? Delaware statutory trusts?

          1. I've been the sole owner of a corporation. I've been a stockholder in a corporation. I've been the director of a corporation. I've been a manager in a corporation. I've been an employee of a corporation. I've been a vendor of a corporation. I've been a customer of a corporation. And at no time, in any of those roles, did I ever stop being the proud owner of First Amendment rights.

            Yes, the people who own, manage, work for and with corporations are all people with free speech rights. Why do you imagine otherwise?

            Is your hatred of the corporation boogeyman such that you'd deny these individuals their right to free speech? People wouldn't lose their rights just because you hate them, but, especially in this case, people don't lose their right to criticize the politicians who regulate their activity or support the politicians they like--certainly not just because the Democrats want to implement socialism.

            1. I was being facetious, joking about how people who think CU is a bad decision tend to say corporate speech can be regulated because it's not an individual, by asking if other limited liability entities are allowed to speak freely. "Corporations aren't people!" Well, yes, they are associations of people. If the movie they wanted to put out was produced and distributed by a sole proprietorship it would be fine, but because the movie was produced by a corporate entity it should be regulated - that line of thought is a mockery.

              No, I don't think you lose the right to speak freely because you choose to do so through a corporate entity, a partnership, a trust, or any other organization, whether having liability limited to your equity interest (another highly misunderstood concept) or not, or whether it's three dicks on a corner drinking beers or the CEO of Globex Corp.

              1. It's become so standard on the left to justify rolling over people's rights with arguments that dehumanize them, I'm starting to criticize the tactic--never mind the cause.

                Before they get people to accept depriving homophobes, racists, and xenophobes of their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights, first they need to get people to accept the position that homobphobes, racists, and xenophobes aren't really people.

                It's always easier to get the people on board with violating someone's rights once you've convinced them that the people whose rights you want to violate aren't really people. Early to mid-20th Century war propaganda is all about that--for better or worse. I'm glad we won World War II, and I'd have supported dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for other reasons. But war propaganda was all about dehumanizing our enemies. We're not really dropping bombs on people. We're dropping them on rats!


                That's why the socialists are always telling us that corporations aren't people. It's because they want us to go along with violating those people's rights.

                1. I wonder which platforms they'll use to disseminate such propaganda and suppress opposing ideas. I wonder which platforms will be used to suppress the undesirable's speech and erase them from the public landscape.

                  1. Any idea that's so stupid it can't survive without the government's help should be ignored and forgotten.

                    1. Any idea that’s so stupid it can’t survive without the government’s help should be ignored and forgotten.

                      Great blanket statement. It takes the thought right out of everything. You know what? Fuck having telephone and internet service in rural areas. High speed ag tech that has helped boost crop yields? Fuck that. Need 911? Those fuckers can just die if they need to call 911. Just ignore and forget 'em. After all, "any idea that's so stupid it cant survive without the government's help should be ignored and forgotten." Its the Ken Shultz philosophy.

            2. This way, we can make it so the more money you have, the more speech you have.

              1. Yeah, what's the point of government if not to ensure equality of outcome?

                Why don't you go be a progressive already?

                1. Why don’t you go be a progressive already?

                  Oh noooooooooooooooo. So horrible, you called me the bad word!


                  1. Oh, it's not about calling you names!

                    If you think it's not fair that other people get to exercise their rights--because they have more money than you--then you might as well be a progressive.

                    If you think other people shouldn't be free to do (or say) things unless it's in the best interests of you and the rest of society, then you might as well be a progressive.

                    1. If you think it’s not fair that other people get to exercise their rights–because they have more money than you–then you might as well be a progressive.

                      You say that like its an insult. But the progressives have a point on this stuff. Shit, just look at the Do So! campaign.

                      Free and fair elections are already over, and it is the result of Facebook, Google and Twitter. Progressives happen to have a more realistic view of the world in this one particular area when compared to libertarians. Your response so far has been blanket statements and philosophical theory - which work on an individual level, but tend not to work on a macro level. This "do nothing la la la there is no problem" response is just not cutting it with anyone, and it never will. There's going to be legislation on this, and you and people that think like you will either have a proposal or you won't.

                    2. The solution to free and fair elections is not to allow some entity to limit information or speech but to encourage more speech. Full stop.

                    3. People spending a shit ton of money on elections has worked so well, Hillary Clinton is President. I can list more if you'd like.

                      Fuck off with that "they have a point" bullshit.

                  2. It’s your authoritarian beliefs that make you bad, not the label that identifies them.

              2. "We" don't make it that way.

                Having more money makes it that way.

                Money is the enabler for all sorts of freedoms. And That's a good thing

                1. I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said here, but it seems to me that you've forgotten the cost part of your cost-benefit analysis.

              3. More precisely, the more money people voluntarily contribute to an organization to speak on their behalf, the more money that organization has to speak on their behalf.

                For some reason, you seem to have a problem with that.

        2. Jesus, Ken, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. How can you not help but celebrate the fact that the Democrats are seeking to overturn Citizens United by way of a Constitutional amendment? At least they're willing to admit that the Constitution and the Supreme Court and the laws of the United States still have some small relevance to government. They could just make it part of their party platform - next Democratic President issues an executive order overturning Citizens United and that's that.

      2. Now do Gay Marriage and Campaign Finance “Reform” and smoking bans on private property and regulating farm ponds as navigable waterways and Health Insurance Mandates and everything else that was supposed to be difficult and time consuming to change laws and constitutional amendments and elections.
        All it takes is a pen and a phone and an extra judge

  11. AOC can straight off go fuck herself.

    Illiberal, ignorant, illiterate twat.

    1. She's an authoritarian socialist, and she's intellectually dishonest.

      I can't think of any politician who is more opposed to libertarianism.

      1. Ilhan Omar?


    Reason should do a story on this fucking debacle. this story makes me blind with rage.

    1. I seem to recall that that story did pop up in one of ENB's roundups not too long ago.

      1. Who actually bothers to read the links? I want a cover story and I want it now. Wht has happened to muh reason!

        1. So a Britches article isn't good enough? Poor Britches.

    2. I check out some of the comments on that twitter post.

      One moron said this is why private property should not be allowed. Another said private property is theft.

      1. Someone should ask him for the password to his account. After all, private property is theft.

        1. I was thinking taking his guitar if he has one, or any other cherished possession.

    3. Perhaps an accidental fire will take care of this poor guy's problems.

    4. Wow. A classic example of self-absorbed smugness that woman.

      I can't believe it. Pony up the money then if you like the damn building so much.

    5. I used to eat there ages ago -- high school Friday nights 🙂 Sad it's closing, but yeah, the story makes me sick. Here's hoping the building's soon the victim of a grease fire.

  13. is not free speech Reason. What a bunch of baloney. You're still free to advocate for whatever you want- just can't donate tons of dark money to do so.

    Citizens United is one of the worst scotus decisions in recent memory and proves itself every single election.

    1. Yeah! Why allow an amplification of ones voice! Lwts end the internet, government run television, no individual printers! Hell yeah! You will speak only where you are told to speak!

    2. If you think the Citizens United decision was wrong then you believe that polirtical speech can be regulated as money donation.

      Secondly, saying that you have a right without being able to spend resources to use it means the right is restricted.

      1. You have the right to keep and bear arms, you just can’t spend money on ammo....

        You have the right to peaceably assemble and vote, you just can’t buy gas or use public streets to do so

    3. wearingit
      August.9.2019 at 10:19 am
      "Yeah….money is not free speech Reason. What a bunch of baloney...."

      Claims from lefty imbeciles =/= facts or even arguments.

    4. Yeah, we're not controlling what anybody can say, just the use of money. The New York Times Co., a corporation, can publish all the anti-Donald Trump articles they like, on the web and on paper, as long as they don't spend any money in the process.

      Similarly, since money isn't abortion, we're not outlawing abortion, we're just banning any corporation, Planned Parenthood included, from spending any money on providing abortions.

    5. "Citizens United is one of the worst scotus decisions in recent memory "

      Worse than Kelo?

      1. Worse than upholding the penaltax?

        1. Those two were wins for the progs.

    6. The only ones who DESERVE unfettered speech are the media, who have proven themselves to be responsible, sober, and fair to all...

    7. The plaintiff in Citizens United was banned from showing a movie critical of Hillary Clinton so no, under your proposal you are not "free to advocate for whatever you want."

    8. Nobody's saying money is speech, idiot. Money enables speech. How much money did you or someone else have to spend to be able to post your moronic opinion on this forum? I guarantee you that number is greater than zero, so that means your ability to say what you want should also be curtailed.


  14. The "intellectual dark web" publication Quillette has retracted an anti–Democratic Socialists of America piece allegedly written by an alienated blue-collar member of the group. The piece was a hoax and the purported author did not exist.

    I started to read that story and bailed after the first couple of paragraphs. It oozed "phony."

    1. Who needs fake stories about DSA when they posted their own conference videos for us to mock?

    2. But were the videos real?

  15. Can we please finally put to bed the notion that the Democrats are at least good on civil liberties?

    1. Sure, right after you put to bed the theory that Republicans are gonna cut spending.

    2. Democrats, like Republicans, are a mixed bag on civil liberties.

      Republicans tend to be better in supporting Second Amendment rights, Democrats tend to be better in supporting Eighth Amendment rights.

      On the others, it's kind of a meh. Well, except the Third.

      1. Only Democrats are trying to amend the constitution to attack the 1st. But both sides right?

        1. Republicans have often offered up flag burning ban amendments. So... yeah. Both sides.

      2. Hey, who stole Jeff's account? -- Made an actual excellent point!

  16. "Senate Democrats Back Constitutional Amendment to Undo Citizens United"

    This is one of the very few issues on which Democrats are wrong. And not surprisingly, their analysis is flawed because they're still operating under the old "Republicans are the party of the corporations and the rich" paradigm.

    In fact, wealthy and powerful interests — including billionaires — are on the right side of history more often than not. For example the Koch Brothers use their money to fund open borders advocacy. And Tom Steyer is an important voice calling for Orange Hitler's impeachment.


    1. Progressives are now getting angry about billionaire philanthropy and saying it's a bad thing. I think it is because they believe billionaires should not exist, and the amount of philanthropy that billionaires are able to put into effect proves them obviously wrong.

      1. Also it undermines faith in government almighty.

    2. How can Citizens United achieve SUPER-PRECEDNT status in your expert opinion?

  17. Like a lot of other heterosexual guys, when I see Scarlett Johansson playing Black Widow in a Marvel flick, I hardly notice she has hands--much less what gun she's carrying. In the wake of a couple of mass shootings, however, I just saw part of the original Avengers movie, again, and I couldn't help but notice that she appeared to be taking out an alien invasion army with a Glock subcompact.

    The ability to shoot a Glock 26 appears to be her only superpower--and it's devastating. Plenty of people will tell you that a subcompact is insufficient for use as a home defense gun, and it's not just because they want you to put a light on it so you can see who you're shooting. They also want more rounds in a home defense gun. Black Widow doesn't need more rounds. She can take out an alien invasion army with her subcompact pistol--because it's semi-automatic!

    I don't know if this scene was a reflection of people's misconceptions about semiautomatic pistols or whether it's a source of people's misconceptions about semiautomatic pistols. It's probably some of both. If she'd had a AR-15, she might have been able to take out one of their freakazoid bio-mechanical warships, but then I'm guessing that, in Hollywood, AR-15s are only for the bad guys.

    1. Anyone who can pay attention to what Scarjo is saying or holding can't well call themselves heterosexual.

      1. I tried to listen to her on Jimmy Kimmel once. Had to mute the tv. She's is not smart.

  18. I'll repeat:
    There is no reason for much concern over Google's favorites algorithm.
    As an example, I'm getting flooded with personal appeals from that scumbag Steyer for donations.
    This morning, I almost did, but I'd already thrown the dog-shit in the garbage.

    1. Oh, and I see the sin in the top image: "Get Big Money Out Of Politics", and yet no mention of Steyer.

      1. Or Soros.

        Or all the old charitable foundations that have been corrupted and taken over and fund 98% of lefty causes

    2. My girlfriend's friend was having a lot of problems with her computer. Turns out, the thing was locking up with pop-up windows. I've never seen a system so paralyzed with spyware, malware, etc. It was ridiculous. I isolate the programs that are causing the problem, and get rid of them. Clean her system up. Things are good.

      A few days later, she's having the same problem again. I go to look, and she's got the same malware programs loaded again. I tell her that we need to back her data up and reformat her hard drive. When she asked why, I explained that these two programs were the cause of the problem, and when I finally got rid of them, they just came back.

      That's when she told me that she'd reinstalled them. She liked those programs because without them, she doesn't get any of the "offers". Turns out, she wanted the spam. She wanted the pop up windows. She just didn't want them to slow her computer down. The reason there are spammers in the world is because there are people who like, want, and are susceptible to spam.

      Targeted advertising works on enough of us, but I'd love to see a study of IQ levels and the susceptibility to advertising like that.

      I reset the advertising ID on my Roku device regularly. Right after doing that, I had a girlfriend over who was using my computer for shopping at a department store. I guess she was looking to update my wardrobe? Suddenly, all the ads I see via streaming are for gay rights causes, make up for men, and ads for clothes that look like they're from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The poker buddies come over, see these ads, and were all over it with, "What the fuck have you been watching?" "Is there something you want to tell us?"

      1. "That’s when she told me that she’d reinstalled them. She liked those programs because without them, she doesn’t get any of the “offers”."

        Ken, every time some one suggests the installation of some 'free' app, I mention that those things never have a list price, you have to figure out what they cost later.
        And I just read that the 'flashlight' 'free' phone app (typically used in dark restaurants) reports your location when used.
        Clever, but no thanks. I use a cigar lighter...

        1. I just go with "So, you're the product. And you go for free."

        2. It was amazing that, on one hand, she was aware of spam. On the other hand, there was good spam and bad spam, and she was willing to suffer the bad spam in order to get the good stuff. Now, can you fix my computer so that the malware I enjoy so much won't slow my computer to a stand-still?

          I'm sure her computer was being used as a spam server.

          If she represents one out of every hundred people, then there are millions of people like that in this country alone.

      2. Thanks for sharing Ken. Hilarious!

        We have multiple user accounts for our AppleTv, so when other people visit and watch things, it does not mess up our algorithm picks.

    3. I donated a buck to Steyer. He's now qualified in three polls and the longer we can keep the clown show running the better.

      1. Don't get me wrong: Steyer is awful and Hellman & Friedman is an absolute nightmare of an organization to work for, but it's just a buck.

        1. I am coming around to y'alls strategy to keep certain Dems in the clown car. Especially for $1.

          I have never given politicians money but I think this strategy is funny as all Hell.

  19. ""Citizens United has damaged our democracy and allowed corporate money to flood our politics," claimed the California senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris on Twitter."

    Spending lots of money is bad, then? Or is it just when it doesn't benefit you, sweetheart?

    1. Corporate money became a lot less bad in 2008, 2012, and 2016.

      It reared it’s ugly head again in 2010 tho, but wasn’t a problem again by 2014 (Steyer’s wasted billions) or in 2018

  20. "He's done everything he can to stir up racial conflict and hatred in this country."

    And if there's anybody who should know about stirring up racial conflict and hatred, it's a Democrat.

  21. If the democrats were truly concerned about the impact of (republican) money on US politics, they would just outlaw campaign contributions.
    The old theory was that it took a lot of money to get your message out, and contributions were a necessary evil. Now the web can literally reach the world for pennies, and no contributions are actually necessary. Just set up a tax funded web site on government servers and give each candidate an amount of space, perhaps more space for higher offices, perhaps not. What we get as voters is the candidates having to actually articulate a specific political philosophy, and not able to say different things to different constituents. What the politicians get is freedom from fund-raising, and the ability to actually focus on their job. (once elected).
    People can still freely exercise their first amendment rights, but subject to the same restrictions of truth and libel as every other speech. Of course, they will still have to have a free speech permit issued under 'common sense' restrictions to prevent hate.

    1. If the democrats were truly concerned about the impact of (republican) money on US politics, they would just outlaw campaign contributions.

      Some of them do, actually.

    2. The problem is that incumbency is a huge built-in advantage, and it's the challenger who needs to raise the money to overcome that. Big restrictions on campaign finance are just cleverly disguised ways to keep incumbents in power.

      1. If everyone just was on a ballot alphabetically and people researched the candidates on their own and then voted, I am not sure that incumbents would have a major advantage.

        A caveat would be that incumbents dont get an (i) next to their names.

        Taxpayers pay for a simple web page for each office and then each new candidates gets a web page for 6 months before the election.

  22. The proposed constitutional amendment contains the following:
    '‘‘SECTION2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections."'

    So, the congress would be empowered to decide which corporations, etc. (and perhaps individuals) were "unsavory," including, of course, newspapers, websites, PTA newsletters, etc.

    Then, the authors have the audacity to write:

    "‘SECTION3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’'

    Which, of course, they would give Congress the power to do.
    Keep your powder dry, Mates.


    1. "and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law"

      Artificial entities like unions? I won't be holding my breath.

      1. And, if I were a lawyer, I could easily point out, according to the text, that individuals could also be "tagged" as not-free-speech-worthy,

    2. “‘SECTION3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’’

      By omission they are implying that this amendment gives them to power to regulate speech, peacefully assembly and the redress of grievances.

      1. Does look that way, don't it. They will not doubt have a new federal agency to which they will delegate those powers. Let's see.... the Ministry of Truth, perhaps?


      2. I think they are implying that "freedom of the press" refers not to the individual right to publish printed matter, but protects a right held exclusively by the cadre of professional publishing companies colloquially referred to as "the press"

        Which an all too common misunderstanding of the first amendment

        1. And that makes perfect sense, of course, in "their" world. It's much easier to control an "industry" than individuals. But then, Congress (both sides) do that to a certain extent now. I am pretty sure that press credentials from, say, the Universal Life Church, would never get one into an important press conference.

    3. “‘SECTION3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’’
      Which, of course, they would give Congress the power to do."

      Self-awareness is hard!

      1. The intention is to put into the hands of government the power to decide what organizations constitute the press and therefore have their rights protected.

    4. Stephen Colbert’s monologue would not be problematic, just certain ads that might be run during his program with a differing view

  23. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started...........
    ➴➴➴➴ OPEN THIS WEBSITE ➴➴➴➴

  24. China is going all in on pinning the unrest in Hong Kong on American intelligence services.

    "Beijing-backed media outlets in mainland China and Hong Kong circulated a photo of Julie Eadeh, political unit chief of the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong, meeting in a hotel lobby with several prominent members of the opposition, including 22-year-old Joshua Wong, a key figure in protests that rocked Hong Kong five years ago.

    The reports, in China Daily and other mainland outlets, pointed to the meeting as evidence that a U.S. “black hand” was behind the protests. Some of the outlets also revealed details of Ms. Eadeh’s work history and publicized the names of her children.

    The Chinese government reports go on to detail American involvement in various "color" revolutions and say that the unrest in Hong Kong has all the markings of a color revolution.

    IF IF IF U.S. intelligence services are taking advantage of a situation China created by trying to introduce a bill to extradite political activists and try them under different laws outside of Hong Kong, then they're only taking advantage of a situation that China created. It wasn't the U.S. that used criminal gangs to beat up protesters.

    To the extent that the U.S. is assisting people in Hong Kong who are peacefully protesting in defense of their rights, I'm not sure that's an awful thing--even from a libertarian perspective. If we're not arming them, paying them to be violent, or using force in the region, then what are we talking about? Are we offering them advice on organizing a peaceful protest? How aggressive is that?

    1. I wish we WERE more involved.

      The Democrats' obsession over Russia has been covering, for years, just how much China fucks with our elections. Fucks with the companies that controls access to info.

      Russia is a nothingburger. China is the foe.

      1. Still waiting on the Special Counsel to look into how the 1996 election was bought/hacked

  25. BTW, isn't this a national day of celebration in Japan, memorializing the millions of Japanese lives saved by the nuclear weapons?
    Shame on them.

    1. Yeah, that 'you can keep your....'
      Oh, wait a minute!

  26. ---"ICE agents tried to raid a Brooklyn homeless shelter without a warrant." ---

    That's because Deez Iz A Nazion Of Lawz. ICE told us that after making that fapping spectacle for white supremacists in Mississippi.

  27. I would be more accepting of outsider campaign spending if it was not so nasty and negative. Sadly these negative ads work. Not but informing us but by disgusting us so much we choose not to vote. If it take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the crap then I am for that amendment.

    1. I suppose asking politicians to not be so disgusting as to discourage people from voting is out of the question, then?

    2. Free speech means tolerating the kind of speech I don't mind

  28. "money out, voters in"

    The guy holding that sign must've thought he was at an open borders rally

    1. +100

  29. I've never seen Democrats protesting the gobs of union money injected into political campaigns for their benefit. So the only principle they have is allowed for us, forbidden for those who oppose us.

    1. As designed.

  30. BLACK FRIDAY UK power cut plunges Britain into darkness as National Grid outage sparks travel chaos with trains, tubes and traffic lights paralysed

    Haha. Garbage Island would rather ridicule Trump and ban knives then make sure their power grid works correctly.

  31. Minneapolis might ban drive-through restaurants.

    That’s just un-American.

  32. this is not right.
    Chase bank

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.