DEMOCRATS LAUNCH ONLINE PETITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REVERSE CITIZENS UNITED

[kpete]

DEMOCRATS LAUNCH ONLINE PETITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REVERSE CITIZENS UNITED | As the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling nears its second anniversary, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has launched an online petition http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/democrats-citizens-united-ruling_n_1216868.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008 aimed at reversing its corrosive effects on elections. Their goal is to get 100,000 people to support a constitutional amendment barring unlimited corporate campaign contributions. “The Citizens United ruling has unleashed a flood of shadowy, corporate money into our political process,” the petition reads. “It’s an attack on our democracy.” The amendment, introduced by Senate Democrats last November, would add language to the Constitution enabling Congress and the states to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/19/407477/democrats-launch-online-petition-for-constitutional-amendment-to-reverse-citizens-united/
https://dscc.org/act4?action_KEY=340

[NMDemDist2]

1. signed and rec'd n/t

[xchrom]

2. Du rec. Nt

[KansDem]

3. Signed

K&R!!!

This equine excrement has got to stop!

[Waiting For Everyman]

4. Signed.

[elleng]

5. To propose Amendments,

•In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Signed. Thanks.

[benld74]

7. John Hancock'ed

[riverwalker]

8. yes!

direct link to petition
http://dscc.org/act4?action_KEY=340

[FarPoint]

9. Signed with passion.

Done

[Ohio Joe]

10. K&R - nt

[gateley]

11. Done -- even contributed a whopping $10! Thanks, kpete! nt

[stonecutter357]

12. K&R...

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. Signed, Kicked, Recc's. n/t

[Politicub]

14. Signed, kicked and rec'd

Proud to be a dem!

[neverforget]

15. signed

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

16. I would love to sign it, but as a British Citizen

I cannot. I lend my full-hearted backing to the cause, if that's any good.

[Major Hogwash]

17. Hell, yeah, it counts.

I don't know how much foreign money is flowing into our elections now, but I would guess it is a pretty penny this time around.

[DemonSpawn]

18. Signed.

[cyberpj]

19. After the Colbert/Koppel interview on Rock Center Brian Williams said Supremes will never overturn

a decision - and that it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to do such things:

Scroll down to view video of the interview (it's excellent):
approx 6 mins:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/entertainment/television/NATL-Colbert-Talks-Super-PACs-on-Rock-Center-137471813.html

Is that right?

[Motown_Johnny]

20. signed and shared on Facebook

[guitar man]

21. K&R

Signed!

[GOTV]

22. Why do online petitions always require an email address? ...

... I always feel I'm being played for a sucker by those that put the petitions up. What does an email address prove?

I don't know that signing these petitions ever does anything positive but it almost always gets me spam from the organization hosting the petition as well as other organizations they're sure I'd want to hear from.

[woo me with science]

23. K&R

[deacon]

24. Must be done. This must be reversed. n/t

[d_b]

25. Done n/t

[AlbertCat]

26. Good.

Now... investigate the Justices who championed this thing.... which was not even part of the original case before the court. A justice who actually thinks money = free speech and is protected by the 1st Amendment is a questionable choice for the highest court in the land. It would seem such a justice does not understand what the USA is supposed to be about and is unqualified for such a high level position. Especially if they "added" it into a case.