General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAdam Schiff introduces constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
Washington (CNN)Rep. Adam Schiff on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which helped usher in a new era of big money in American elections.
"Our democracy is not for sale. We must stop the flood of dark money from drowning out the voices of everyday citizens," the California Democrat said in a statement on Twitter. He said such an amendment would "restore power to the American people."
By a 5-4 ruling, the high court in 2010 swept aside a ban on independent spending by corporations and unions in candidate elections, saying the restrictions amounted to censorship. Outside spending in federal elections has soared from $338 million in 2008, the last presidential election before the ruling, to $1.4 billion in 2016, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Overturning the blockbuster ruling has become a rallying cry for many progressives in the Democratic Party, and other lawmakers have introduced a similar measure this year. But efforts to revise the Constitution have failed to gain traction. Two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve the change. Then, three-fourths of states must ratify it.
Eyeball_Kid
(7,431 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I wish Sen. Sinema would stand up and be counted. Democrats in Arizona, donated time and treasure to elect her.
panader0
(25,816 posts)I sent her an email and got the standard "Thanks for your interest" reply.
District 2 here.
ConnieAZ1
(8 posts)not only did she vote to approve barr - after his 'testimony' she asked for a private meeting with him to discuss said 'testimony'. she got my vote under duress (ran a negative campaign against matt heinz), and has quickly been put on my joe manchin, heidi heitkamp list of do not trust a word they say...next week i start the phone calls.
panader0
(25,816 posts)backtoblue
(11,343 posts)Roy Rolling
(6,915 posts)Strike at the heart of the beast.
DemocracyMouse
(2,275 posts)Mark my words: the Rude-ugly-kins will claim this proposal (which is good and sound) is "freedom-killing." But Citizens United and its cousins represents freedom for sale. Freedom for the wealthiest. Getting rid of (Rich) Citizens United will return freedom to the people.
And BTW, we really should point out in the press (repeatedly!) that this is the proper title for the tumor spreading like a cancer in our country:
(RICH) CITIZENS UNITED
watoos
(7,142 posts)I bet Alito still thinks he voted the right way.
Owl
(3,641 posts)dhol82
(9,353 posts)This has been a blight on our nation since it was first passed.
AllaN01Bear
(18,189 posts)Ponietz
(2,965 posts)patphil
(6,172 posts)Since neither a corporation nor a union are living entities with voting rights, how can it be censorship to deny them the right to pump unlimited funds into elections.
This definitely has to be fixed.
Unfortunately, the chances that a constitutional amendment can be passed to do this are very low.
The process of adding an amendment to the Constitution is deliberately difficult to make sure that any amendments are widely accepted before they can become law.
It could take a decade or more to do this.
That said, I think it's a great idea, and should be initiated.
I wonder how many republicans will vote for this.
Patrick Phillips
spanone
(135,829 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Yeah, I know it can't be passed, with the current Senate makeup. But it's a start.
KPN
(15,643 posts)important to give overturning Citizens' United high and constant visibility. It won't be overturned soon, but railing about while doing nothing to actually change it only extends it's life further. We need to make it as conspicuous and present as the Rs made overturning the ACA. Eventually, David will topple Goliath.
czarjak
(11,269 posts)calimary
(81,222 posts)B Stieg
(2,410 posts)bluestarone
(16,926 posts)times 1000!!!!