The Saving American Democracy Amendment

I don't like this idea, but at the same time it isn't necessarily a bad idea. What Kal said is very true. But what I don't like is how the government is trying to further control the flow of money between people and organizations. Although I do see that this was made with good intentions.

According to the FAQ, "501(c)(4) organizations, which are nonprofits established to promote social welfare, are permitted to participate in elections so long as it is not the organization’s primary purpose." I imagine that stems from the line in section one about "or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state."

From what I've read there is nothing to suggest that they are people, however with this i still ask are corporations at least protected by the 1st and 14Th amendment and what are your opinions on the cases of Buckley V. Valeo, First national bank of Boston V Bellotti and the Millionaire Amendment.

I find Buckly v Valeo to be a very... interesting decision. I feel that it is right and wrong at the same time. I do think that donations during an election can be considered free speech, but I feel that it should be a very regulated speech.

Edit: Can someone clarify what Super-PAC's are to me:
As I understand them, they get unlimited money-raising/spending, but cannot donate directly to the candidate. I'm probably wrong, but that sounds oddly like a 527. Am I wrong?

I want to see your opinion on this link on why it should be overturned

Link: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/money_notspeech.html

I think the link's heart is in the right place, but I also think it seeks to put the US into what they would call "two distinct classes". I feel that the court in Vermont was wrong, but this reaction is just the opposite extreme. While the rich should be limited in their donating, there is no reason to go on a witch hunt.

What would be a good "Limitation" of donations.

I believe here it's 250$ or 500$.

Even still it claims in Vermont even 200$ can buy alot of television time.

Edit: I just notice i passed 2,000 post Everyone will like this post because of cake.

For the individual? I guess $1000 total. So, in any given election, you only $1500 dollars to give to all candidates. So, if you'd like to support multiple candidates, you'd have to split the pot.

The question is, could the Corporation find a way around this and funnel the money another way, Still thinking of how they could. I could assume a larger corporation would use its smaller Corporations that it owns to send money as well, they could also persuade the rich to give a certain amount of money to a candidate that supports the corporation position.

PAC's have have limits, and have to publicize their donors. Super-PAC's don't. For more info: http://www.opensecrets.org/

Isn't that what Stephen Colbert did.

Wow. I don't think I'll ever be able to look at you the same again.