HuffPo: Citizens United Going Down? Democrats Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Ruling

[Fire Walk With Me]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court may treat corporations like people who can spend whatever they want on elections, but the American people don't have to accept it, said Democratic senators who proposed a constitutional amendment Tuesday to retake control of campaign spending.

The amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), doesn't directly address the justices' legal finding that corporations have a right to free speech that was curtailed by election law. Instead, it would add to the Constitution language that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.

The amendment would effectively reverse two landmark Supreme Court decisions -- the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment_n_1069596.html?1320176417&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Would be a FANTASTIC first step toward restoring our democracy

(if they can really get it done)

[TheWraith]

2. The only way it gets done, unfortunately, is a SCOTUS justice being replaced by a Dem POTUS.

There's no way we're going to get a constitutional amendment passed. The bar is simply too high.

[theaocp]

8. UR right. Fuck it. n/t

[TheWraith]

15. Have faith. We just have to make sure that we have a Democrat in the White House.

Sooner or later one of the right-wingers on the SCOTUS will drop dead.

[Scuba]

3. Already? This should have been introduced within a week of the ruling. n/t

[redqueen]

14. True. They see the effect OWS is having

and now suddenly they want to get on the right side of it.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Some technical problems to be anticipated:

1. Senate: Filibuster

2. House: 2/3 vote in favor of the amendment needed. Not while Eric Cantor still walks the halls of Congress.

[unblock]

5. filibuster? if you can't get 60 votes for cloture, you certainly can't get 67 votes for passage.

the real "technical" problem is that as long as those court decisions stand, there's a flood of corporate money influencing officeholders to KEEP the decisions intact.

i see no way this will pass, certainly not within the next 20 years or so. a LOT has to change before passage is feasible.

there's merit in making noise about it, but expecting this to become part of the constitution any time soon is not realistic.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Exactly, well said.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Don't forget

3/4 of the states must ratify, as well.

[unblock]

17. true -- also a very tall order.

[gratuitous]

7. These misbegotten decisions must be overturned

Whether it happens right away yesterday via this route, or whether this is the first step in a long slog against the very corruption its trying to address, this is a good development. I fully expect the Republicans to present a united front against it in favor of their big money corporate overlords. But the good thing about a constitutional amendment is that it is then by definition constitutional, and not subject to Supreme Court review.

Let's get the battle lines drawn and the sides nice and defined: Who's on the side of elections bought and paid for with anonymous big money, and who's on the side of an election process conducted freely and openly? Once we get those issues delineated, perhaps we'll see some of the Kochroaches scurrying to get out of the light of public inquiry . . .

[Jim Lane]

9. This is the right approach, not the ranting about "corporate personhood"

I think it's a good thing that no corporation can be deprived of its property without due process of law. I wouldn't want a Republican President to have the power to confiscate an office building owned by the Sierra Club or a bank account belonging to The Nation.

This amendment, unlike the corporate personhood stuff, would also enable Congress to address campaign spending by the likes of the Koch brothers.

As others have noted, it won't pass this year, but I'm glad to see the process starting.

[meow2u3]

10. Take it directly to the states

The amendment will never pass in this Congress. Too many so-called representatives are either in bed with, or intimidated by, the megacorporations who make them offers they can't refuse.

[chowder66]

11. They need to reform the political races too...

They need to stop candidates from running to make money and/or to gain fame. It muddies the waters, wastes a lot of time and takes away from massive issues that need actual attention in a serious way.
I mention this because I haven't seen it discussed. Sorry if it has been and I missed it. I'm sick of the circus.

[JDPriestly]

12. Great. Let's get this done!!!!!

[Uncle Joe]

13. They're dramatically on the right side of the issue with the American People, any politician

standing in the way of this, will be bulldozed over by their next election.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Fire Walk With Me.:thumbsup:

[Nye Bevan]

18. Surely what the amendment needs to say is 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?

[Uncle Joe]

19. How about it says something like this,

"Every American is automatically licensed to own a radio station and television network."

By requiring a license allowing a select few wealthy individuals and corporations to own the nation's megaphones, Congress has already De Facto abridged freedom of speech, so the question becomes, "how to minimize the disparity?"

Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Why do you need a radio station or TV network?

The post you just made is accessible by anyone in the world with an internet connection. Anyone can start their own blog or news site at virtually no cost. Why the focus on the old technologies?

[Uncle Joe]

21. 1. That only became the case recently.

2. Television is still the dominant means of reaching the masses, it and radio; to a lesser extent are still the megaphones.

[uponit7771]

22. +1

[ellisonz]

23. Go Dems!

:kick: