Edwards says Amend the Constitution

On January 27, 2010, Congresswoman Donna Edwards announced that she would introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to undo the damage caused the the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Donna Edwards
• John Bonifaz
• first amendment
• free speech
• corporationselections
• McCain
• Feingold
• McCain-Feingold
• corruption
• voting
• Hillary Clinton
• Hillary the Movie
• 28th
• amendment
• John
• Conyers
• Bonifaz
• Freespeechforpeople.org
• Harry Hanbury

[navarre9]

@Patriot177689 i'm sure you know all of this and where merrily pointing out any minute incorrect detail to show your disapproval with democrats mostly because you think that we hate the country and that the polices of the people we elect are opposite of what you want passed. and don't get me wrong when a person speaks they should speak with accuracy but come on something that minuet does not make a person a fraud.

[navarre9]

@Patriot177689 you are correct in saying america is a republic but a republic is not any closer to oligarchy than democracy. a republic (very close to a democracy) is a state in which the supreme power is held by the people and the officials they elect. her point was that corporations and there lobbyist have way to much power in our governments decisions and elections, which gives us the "people" less choice.

[ocerg1111]

@LordoftheShale well said.

[Patriot177689]

Donna Edwards is not knowledgable on American government because if she could read she would know that this is a Republic and not a Democracy. She is a fraud just like Obama.

[john51880]

I think you are misguided.

[LordoftheShale]

You get a voice, but its volume should not be related to your income.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with individual rights. An individual can speak out (and financially support) any issue they feel passionate about.

Corporations don't have passions or interests. They are not people. They do whatever will increase their profit margins. They are also many times more powerful than an individual. This is why their spending must be controlled.

[john51880]

So if you are doing well, making money you should have no political voice?

[TirianCreed]

Good going.

[meadbert]

Yes, freedom of the press is protected by the ninth amendment since it was a previously existing right and twice by the first amendment since infringing on the free speech of the press would violate free speech in general and freedom of the press specifically. Freedom of the press includes the presses right to run opinion pieces and advertisements.

[madvoterusa]

Note that the press is not protected from Congressional infringement by freedom of speech, but instead by another separate Constitutionally recognized freedom: freedom of the press.