Hillary Clinton says she would support a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform

[Cali_Democrat]

MONTICELLO, Iowa -- Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling for changes to the nation's campaign finance system, saying here Tuesday that she would support a constitutional amendment if that's what it takes to fix what she called a "dysfunctional" system.

Holding her first official campaign event at Kirkwood Community College in rural Monticello, Clinton identified campaign finance reform as one of several pillars of her 2016 presidential campaign.

"We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all -- even if it takes a constitutional amendment," Clinton said in opening remarks at a roundtable event with Kirkwood students and instructors.

The 2016 presidential election is expected the be the most expensive in U.S. history, with super PACs and campaigns likely to spend billions of dollars.

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/14/hillary-clinton-says-she-would-support-a-constitutional-amendment-on-campaign-finance-reform/

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. OK you anti Hillary folks, how about that!

(let me predict)

Yeah, sure... she SAYS that but will she really do it?

[enough]

3. A constitutional amendment is not something a President does.

It's a years-long process that happens in the States. Ask anyone who has been following the Equal Rights Amendment for decades.

I'm glad Clinton supports it, but it's not something she will have to do anything about.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. So glad you added that last part, one party supports it, one doesnt

this ALONE makes a vote in Nov simple

[sabrina 1]

7. I'm glad she has said she would support Campaign Financed Reform. So here's how they can begin.

Make Big Money a huge campaign issue. It is probably one of the first things that must be done before we can restore several things, the Rule of Law, ie, Corporate Crooks, no matter how Rich and Powerful, Jaimie Diamon eg, WILL be charged the same as any small time crook.

So, considering almost everyone probably agrees how important an issue it is, my suggestion is that all Democratic Candidates refuse to take this tainted money, and do it publicly.

Then challenge the Republicans, at every debate, to refuse the bribes they are taking from Corporations and Special Interest groups.

Candidates should go to the debates with a list of their opponents donors, then ask them 'Who are you going to be working for if you get elected, the 1% (thanks OWS who gave us the lingo everyone now understands) or the American people?

But ALL Dems would have to do it to make it effective.

Make this obscene money POISON for anyone trying to get elected. '

At least one Democrat has done this already.

[YOHABLO]

2. Yeah, after the Republicans, ALEC, the American Enterprise and Heritage Foundation write it.

[Half-Century Man]

5. How about:

Completely publicly funded elections; no personal contributions whatsoever.
Or; Individual contributions cannot exceed $2000.00 per person per year. Contributors must pass a three part test 1) are you alive? 2) can you express yourself as an individual? 3) did you earn the money you plan to contribute?

No third party broadcasted political advertisements. All electronically distributed advertisements/information/talking points/propaganda must be linked to and only released by candidate approval.

Third party freedom of speech is protected by print media alone (includes billboards).

501(c)4s to be enforced as written , not with relaxed interpretation.

Money is not speech, thought, or opinion; it is property.

Live action/performance support of a party or candidate cannot be broadcast or recorded and sold.

Web political traffic must be "seek to find" only, no pop ups or deceptive redirection.


Could Ms. Clinton support such an amendment? Which points could she support? What would she change and why?
Anyway we could ask her? in public? here?

[Dragonfli]

6. +1

[KoKo]

9. "Money is not speech, thought, or opinion; it is property."

Yes... Supremes ruled "Corporations have the same rights as Individual Voters". But...there's the MONEY that speaks and overwhelms what an average Voter can spend. That is "Unequal Advantage." Especially when so few Corporations control most of our Print and Over the Air Media. Average Voter has no way to overcome that as it stands now.

[Half-Century Man]

10. Money seen as speech did one thing, the intended thing.

It turned a gift of property for a political action into a verbal request for personal favor.
From quid pro quo to "would you please".

[mother earth]

12. You need to mainstream this, Half-Century Man, as an OP.

[Enthusiast]

8. The term "unaccountable money" bothers me.

Yes, unaccountable money is a great concern.

But it isn't just unaccountable money that we must be concerned about, it is the influence of money in general.

We need to remove the influence of money from the election and legislative process entirely.

The best answer is publicly financed elections.

[RiverLover]

13. +1 /nt

[merrily]

11. Reality check seems needed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776799