RE: The Anti-Corruption Act
April 24, 2014 at 10:27 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2014 at 10:33 am by Jaysyn.)
(April 24, 2014 at 10:08 am)Crossless1 Wrote: My first reaction was to wonder how this act will pass constitutional muster since the SC has ruled that money in the form of political donations is a protected form of speech. On the site linked in the OP there is an additional link that is supposed to present the reasons lawyers believe the proposed act is constitutional, but I couldn't get it to load. Jaysyn, can you summarize those reasons for me?
From the PDF that you couldn't get to load:
Quote:Constitutionality
Requiring Members of Congress to recuse themselves from taking official actions in situations in which their independence of judgment is questioned is highly likely to be found constitutional. As the Supreme Court recently held in Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 131 S. Ct. 2343 (2011), restrictions on official actions taken by legislators do not constitute restrictions on the First Amendment free speech rights of such legislators.
Since it goes on for some length & outlines the Constitutionality of each of the 11 provisions, I've uploaded the PDF to my Google Drive in the hope that it's easier for you to access.
(April 24, 2014 at 9:44 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I would prefer elections to simply be publicly-funded. No private donations to politicians of any kind.
I agree & I personally contribute to the Presidential Election fund when I file my taxes for this same reason. This bill seems to be a good compromise between public & privately financed elections, however.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
