Sens. Udall, Bennet propose amendment to overturn Citizens United ruling

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado introduced a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The decision gave corporations and unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

“As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections,” Udall said. “With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”



The proposed amendment would grant Congress and the states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system, but would not dictate any specific policies or regulations.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/01/sens-udall-bennet-propose-bill-to-overturn-citizens-united-ruling/

[yourout]

1. They need to make it simple......corporations are not living human beings and are not entitled to...

free speech protection.

[brooklynite]

3. But the Koch Brothers are...

...this amendment would allow restrictions on how much individuals, as well as corporations and organizations can contribute.

[No Elephants]

13. It really can't be simple.

Most media are corporations--publishers of books, magazines, pamphlets, etc. tv stations. radio. records. So is DU. I guess most or all of that that is covered by freedom of the press, but you have to be careful.

Then, about not for profits?

Cancer Society says smoking causes cancer. Some regulator wants to stop the Cencer Socieity from saying that. Is the speech of the incorporated Cancer Society protected by the First Amendment or can it be regulated freely?

And once you allow free speech to media and not for profits, others will create scores of ways to fit themselves under those exceptions.


See also Reply 14.

I would say an amendment needs to be very thoughtfully drafted.

[defendandprotect]

2. They don't breathe -- they can't vote -- they have no human needs --

and it is only corruption of government/courts/judicial officials which suggests

that corporations are "persons" --

We need to remember that there are two sides to this coin -- the other side of

Citizens United is the reality that our candidates, elected officials are SELLING

themselves and our government to elites/corporations ---

We have to stop this bribery and corruption --

Let's keep asking every candidate --

"Senator, Who are you selling yourself to today?"

[Zorra]

4. So true. nt

[SpiralHawk]

5. k and r

for sure - this should get traction

[AllyCat]

6. About time. This ruling needs to go away.

[postulater]

7. But a zygote is a Citizen United. Does this amendment cover zygotes?

[and-justice-for-all]

8. If Corporations are people, then they need to be jailed like ...

any other criminal.

[cascadiance]

21. And executed in states like Texas! BP and Massey as "persons" should be guilty of murder!

[PSPS]

9. "and unions"

The decision gave corporations and unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

Whenever you see the "and unions" canard thrown in, the writer has an agenda.

[No Elephants]

14. MAYbe. Among the first cases granting first amendment rights to corporations

was NAACP v. Button, circa 1950 (freedom of association) and Buckley v. Valeo, a case that held that campaign contributions are political speech.

And, the SCOTUS opinion in Citizens specifically mentioned unions, I believe, along with the Buckley and NAACP cases.

So, political contributions by incorporated unions might come to mind when discussing the issue generally of the Citizens case in particular.

Or, it could be pure quality bs. I am sure both scenarios happen when people discuss Citizens.


Thing is, different lines of cases grew up. In one line of cases, following Button and Buckley, corporations had rights under the Bill of Rights.

Then, there was a case involving a drug store that advertised its prices, then a no no in many states, maybe all. Corporations were not featured, but I am guessing the pharmacy was incorporated. However, it was commercial speech, specifically advertising.

The SCOTUS decided advertising gave poor people a way to comparison shop for the best drug prices and therefore gave advertising its first protection under the First Amendment, though a qualified protection (not misleading). Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy Until this case, commercial speech was considered unprotected.

So, in another line, following Buckley and Virginia, things like advertising and money were speech.

In another line, the Bill of Rights did not prevent Congress from limiting campaign $$.

In Citizens, the SCOTUS said, basically, (falsely, IMO) that it could no longer make sense of all the different lines of cases, so screw it. Corporations have rights under the Bill of Rights and money is speech.

It could just as easily have said, the government interest in fair elections and government that is not beholden outweighs the interest of a corporation OR an indivdual in making unlimited political contributions. Therefore, federal and state legislatures may regulate reasonably.

But nooooo.

[Reptilublican]

10. Simply needs to say, "Corporations are not people and money does not equal speech."

Boom

[No Elephants]

15. Please see Replies 13 and 14.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Here is the text of the proposed amendment...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71154073/A-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Reform-Campaign-Finance

[No Elephants]

16. If they are going to attempt something as daunting as amending the Constitution has

become in our divided country, maybe they ought to make it broader?

On the other hand, maybe something broader wouldn't have a prayer.

[No Elephants]

12. I'm sure no one will add on ridiculous legislation that will defeat this and it

will fly by without Senate filibuster, then get passed by the Republican house. A

nd then sail through ratification by the states, like the ERA did.

[SpiralHawk]

17. We the People will make it so

[Robb]

18. Go Bennet!!

When I consider the grief his supporters endured during the election, I'm even more gratified to see him propose legislation like this.

K&R!

[Nye Bevan]

19. I think the amendment would need to look something like:

The First Amendment to the US Constitution (insofar as it prohibits Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech) does not apply to speech that relates to elections for Federal or State offices, during the 90 days prior to said elections.

How's that? Is 90 days long enough?

[ellisonz]

20. Go Dems!

:kick:

[kenichol]

22. Sen Udall is one good Senator

When folks say we should get rid of all current Congressmen, I remind them of the good ones we do have...like Senator Udall.

Good on him

[totodeinhere]

23. This is a good idea. Introduce it now and get the ball rolling. Then if we can retake control of the...

House in 2012 and keep control of the Senate, then it might have a chance. But obviously it could not be ratified in time to affect the next election.