The Senate Judiciary Committee Just Backed an Amendment to Overturn ‘Citizens United'

[grahamhgreen]

http://m.thenation.com/blog/180605-senate-judiciary-committee-just-backed-amendment-overturn-citizens-united

Leahy's position was echoed by committee Democrats who joined him in backing an amendment that declares:

SECTION 1: To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Don't like the word 'reasonable' in this. I know who will define that. But good news none the less!

[malaise]

1. Get thee to the greatest page

Important news

[navarth]

2. I believe it will be overturned eventually, it has to

...but the damage done by this SC...Oh the humanity.

[Sunlei]

3. Good news .I wish they could move fast on this issue

[Swede Atlanta]

4. I appreciate what they are trying to do but.....

thing to see here move on......

If we couldn't get an amendment to the Constitution (not that we should need one) that says a woman is equal to a man in all respects under the law passed by the required number of states this amendment to overturn Citizens United has no chance.

Impediments

1. Senate Republicans will use the threat of a filibuster to ensure it never receives an up or down vote in the Chamber

2. Even if it squeaked through the Senate, Boehner will never bring it up for a vote in the House

3. Even if it was passed by the House and signed by the President, Republicans control 27 of the state legislatures in this country. 38 states would have to ratify the Amendment for it to become law. These legislatures will never let that happen

Our country has been sold down the river by the Roberts court. The worst court in my lifetime for sure.

[Wounded Bear]

23. Not reasons to not push it through...

Last edited Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

This is not just great law...it is great politics. Every Dem in the country could hold this up and say:

"This is what Repubs fight against. They want corporations and wealthy people to run the country and nullify your vote."

Either way, it's win-win.

[LoisB]

38. I agree with you. Make them explain why they're against it.

[grahamhgreen]

24. It's hard so don't try? This is not the attitude of winner! YES WE CAN!

Accept it as a challenge, not a defeat.

This is how you win in life

[hopemountain]

41. i agree. even tiny steps for progress

can get us to where we want to go!

never give up even when you get tired someone else will pick up the torch and carry it further.

[leftyohiolib]

5. excellent too bad it will die in the house

[PeoViejo]

6. To vote against it

might turn out to be Political Suicide. Even the Teabaggers can see the rationale behind the bill.

[leftyohiolib]

15. they gt their money from the koch boys theny dont worry about political suicide

[rurallib]

17. yet the committee vote was 10-8

but no one ever hears that.

[totodeinhere]

39. I doubt that. The average American doesn't even know what the Citizens Untied decision was.

It is pretty far down on the list of concerns for most Americans and I doubt if it will change many votes. Those who are informed enough to object to Citizens United are already voting Democratic.

[grahamhgreen]

25. OMG! That is such a loser mentality! No offense! Don't give up before you fight! Accept

difficulties as challenges, this is what winners do

[Scuba]

7. Support the principle, but any Amendment that relies on Congress is very poorly conceived.

[tymorial]

12. Not just Congress

Even if Congress had a supermajority in both houses to send a bill to ratification, I cannot see any scenerio where 38 states would all agree to ratify.

[Scuba]

16. My point must be poorly stated. What I meant is that even if the Amendment were ratified ....

... relying on Congress to pass bills limiting their donors is a joke. They'd never pass anything that would be effective.

We need an Amendment that will take all the money out of our elections, not rely on Congress to do something.

[tymorial]

19. Ahh, then I absolutely agree

100%

[Swede Atlanta]

22. Agree........

In an ideal world we need several amendments.

1. Corporations or other legal fictions (i.e. other than a single living human being) are not people in the context of the Constitution and do not have the same rights as "people"
2. Preference would be there is no private money in elections. Electioneering should be publicly funded. There would be strict limits on the length of electioneering. I believe in the UK it is 6 weeks prior to the election. That would suit me fine.

I know neither one of those would ever fly but they would be idea. We need laws to serve "people' and not "legal fictions" and we need elections to be about ideas and not just how much money you have to run negative ads.

[Enthusiast]

8. Kicked and recommended! I agree about "reasonable".

Reasonable to the SCOTUS would be no limits on spending.

[tymorial]

9. Sadly it isn't going to happen

Even if by some miracle the house and senate had a supermajority vote to send this to the states for ratification, the likelihood that 38 states would ratify the new amendment is nil. Given our political climate a new amendment for anything is so unlikely that it nears impossible. I've had this argument with people before on other subjects... usually involving issues important to one side or the other. A liberal friend of mine absolutely believes that if an amendment on gun control was sent to the states for ratification that it would absolutely pass because so many want it to happen. They fail to recognize that unlike a presidential election where the population of a state influences electoral vote power, in a ratification process each state is equal. Therefore, a state with a small population like Wyoming is equal to California. In short, 576,000 people = 38 million. Just another example of a system put in place when population was equally spread and as such no longer relevant in our modern society. Like gun control, it is unlikely to change any time soon.

[grahamhgreen]

26. Wah, Wah, Wah, it's too hard. I don't want to do my homework, I'll never get a job anyway, lol. YES

WE CAN.

[littlemissmartypants]

10. Kicking. Thank you. nt

[Octafish]

11. Why not just make all elections publicly financed?

TV and radio, as part of their obligation to operate in the public trust, would supply FREE air time.

Seeing how profitable election season is for TV and radio, I see another problem...But it would be the right thing to do if We the People are really in charge.

[malthaussen]

20. Sorry, but your suggestion is too rational to be considered.

I've always considered that public election funding would be a no-brainer solution to one problem of corruption, but I seriously doubt that politicians are interested in limiting corruption.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

13. I concur, change "reasonable" to "strict".

Reasonable is a weasel word.

[grahamhgreen]

30. In my view, simply removing the word 'reasonable' would be best.... but I'm no lawyer.

[bemildred]

32. You are probably right.

Overspecifying can get you in trouble too.

[samsingh]

14. reasonable will have to be assessed

[grahamhgreen]

33. It's a dangerous weasel word. If the duly elected Congress, as representatives of the American

People, sets a limit on spending of any sort, then it is reasonable. The word allows an escape valve - a way for SCOTUS to define 'reasonable'. The word should be removed, imho.

[JayhawkSD]

18. I think this os over complicating the situation.

Far simpler to pass an amendment declaring that while those who own corporsons are persons, corporations themselves are not persons and therefore do not accrue the priveledges and rights conveyed by the constitution.

For one thing, the Supreme Court has already ruled the limiting the money spent on politics is the same as limiting free speech.

[Dustlawyer]

21. This is weak sauce for sure! They don't plan on anything but curbing the worst of abuses!

They still want to be bought off, this would change little , but allow a little of our steam to vent, thus keeping some of their monetary gains, THATS ALL THIS IS!

Most people are already falling for it, but they can still buy a politician, take him/her, their spouse and friends on fabulous trips.... I CALL BULL SHIT ON THAT!

We can force them to make real, lasting reform to take the money out of politics. It is the only way to save our country from a fall that we haven't seen since the Roman Empire. Our hubris with this "American Exceptionalism" fed to us by a crooked media will keep us subjugated to the wealthy elite!

September 13th - November 4th Election Day hit the streets in protest that we have to get ALL OF THE MONEY out of our election system! We need to demand PUBLICLY FUNDED FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ELECTIONS!!!!

Screw the U.S. Chamber of (Horrors) Commerce, Wall Street, Alec, K Street, Koch Suckers, Sheldon Adlebrain and all the rest that actually control our government, judicial system and the media.

The time is now to spread the word to all of our groups fighting against the money such as Women's Rights organizations battling for equal pay and the Hobby Lobby decision, LGBTV groups, Education, environment and climate change... These issues and more will be much easier to solve once we solve the Root Cause of our problems! Who is fed up with this rigged crap and ready to get out on the streets and do something? If you can't, or won't get out you can do your part by spreading the word and getting others who can! Thanks.

[RKP5637]

27. A flash of sanity! Citizens United has to rank among one of the most reckless things ... n/t

[eallen]

28. Section 3 means it wouldn't overturn Citizens United

Is it safe for me to assume everyone here thinks Congress should not have been able to set limits on Michael Moore's budget for Farenheit 9/11? That is exactly what freedom of the press is, right? He wanted to make a movie with a political point. Maybe even to influence the presidential election that was then upcoming.

How was Citizens United different?

It would overturn McCutcheon. Which is good.

[bl968]

29. A much needed fix

There needs to be a prohibition that no one not actually living in the district that would be represented by the political office may donate funds for election or defeat of any candidate who seeks that office.

[Maineman]

31. Leahy's wording has a joke built in. By giving permission to regulate, it invites

tons of money to be spent by interested parties who will be trying to influence the process of establishing regulations. I think it would be especially good for incumbents. Essentially all Republicans and too many Democrats take care of themselves rather than our nation and its people.

[rickyhall]

34. This Supreme Court is living on borrowed time

Scalia and Kennedy are pushing 80. They can't last much longer. As long they give it up while a Democrat is Pres. we will get our majority back leaving Roberts, Alito and Thomas in the minority. Then add replacements for Ginsburg and Beyer and we'll have a 21st Century Court. More reason to stay together and keep the White House Democratic.

[davidn3600]

35. What makes you think the GOP would confirm an Obama nom for Scalia or Kennedy?

They didnt put up much fight for Kagan or Sotomayor because they were replacing liberals.

But if Obama is replacing Scalia, there will be war in the Senate....literally war.

[rickyhall]

43. They'd have to approve somebody, wouldn't they?

[Initech]

36. They need a section that very clearly states something like this:

"The rights of corporate entities established in the United States shall not trump the rights over citizens of the United States in influencing elections on state, local and federal levels".

I would support any amendment that has that in the text.

[sakabatou]

37. I wish it could pass the House

but it won't happen.

[grahamhgreen]

42. ...if you won't even try.

[yodermon]

40. ..thus ending DU. n/t