Proponents of a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling are hoping to stoke a grass-roots movement in support of campaign finance reform.
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) gathered for a Summit on Overturning Citizens United in Washington today. Sanders’ co-sponsor of the Saving American Democracy Amendment, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), was not there.
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), who has introduced the companion legislation in the House, was also there.
“We’ve seen campaigns propped up by a single donor,” Sanders said. “We have seen groups accept millions of dollars from undisclosed donors, and billionaires openly saying they plan to pour money into the upcoming general elections. This is not what democracy is supposed to be about.”
Hawaii and New Mexico have passed resolutions calling on Congress to overturn Citizens United. Resolutions are pending in 17 other states. Attorneys general from 11 states recently sent a letter to congressional leaders calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United.
“There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by constitutional amendment,” Sanders said.
Introduced in December, the amendment is currently in the Judiciary Committee.
Why do you put (I-Vt.) after Sanders? Shouldn’t it be (Soc-Vt.)?
No, Idiot-Vermont is still acceptable.
Well that should be interesting, coming up with a new stand alone amendment restricting political activity and expression that doesn’t conflict with the first amendment. Maybe the Senate’s favorite socialist should just keep it simple and campaign to repeal the first amendment?
a little desperate. I heard obama is coming up a little short on campaign cash
The best idea I’ve heard in ages! Once Greenpeace and the SEIU have their right to contribute to political campaigns take away, no DemoKKKrat will ever be elected again.
You haven’t read Sanders’ abomination- it *only* strips First Amendment rights from for-profit corporations, and non-profits which advocate for them. Unions and the assoerted hippie-gangs get a free pass.
Which reminds us that socialists are always enemies of freedom, and should be treated as such–not as well-meaning people we disagree with, but as enemies.
Referring to Mr. Sander’s bill of charges–we’ve also seen entire races demagogued by the media (i.e., white) and entire movements deemed racist by the same (i.e., Tea Party) just because they serve a narrative that advances Progressive plans. We’ve seen college professors get denied tenure because of their conservative beliefs. Is that what democracy is supposed to be about, Bernie?
Yes. Rough, not always pleasant, but vibrant. The proper remedy is to shame malefactors and hit them financially via personal spending choices or legislative defundings–not to make them outlaws.
And so is what Sanders complains about. Corporations and the wealthy can spend money to reach the people. But it is up to the people if they are going to buy what the spenders are selling, or to reject it instead. Saying campaign money must be limited to only that which Sanders thinks proper is one actually saying the people have no virtue of their own; cannot think for themselves; and make judgments based only on the basis of who shells out for the most ads. Well, perhaps that is the way it works in majority-Democratic areas, but I see no reason to assume the rest of the nation is equally vapid, and must be treated as one does high school students–unworthy of being granted adult status..
The American Experiment is based on the idea that the people can actually both think for themselves and govern themselves. And they can. Else Donald Trump would be the presumptive GOP nominee right now, because he could have flooded the airwaves. But he could have spent all his money that he wanted too, and it would not ever have made a difference–peope weren’t buying what he was selling, and were never going to. And so he never really entered the race.
I trust the people. Bernie Sanders is saying Democrats don’t. Once again, the proper remedy to the evils I describe in my first paragraph is public shaming and a refusal to support said establishments via my pocketbook–not to institute political hate crime laws. If the people think that the causes Bernie wishes supported should be supported, they will do so and feel less favorably inclined towards businesses that tried to prevent from being successful. It is a self-regulating mechanism that works.
And if they do not support those causes then all Sanders would have done with his propsal, if it were enacted, would be to have censored part of the community from being able to enable expression of a common communty sentiment. And since prevention of suppression of sentiment was one of the things that the Anti-Federalists fought for and got via the Bill of Rights, I see no reason to induge Mr. Sanders in his temper-tantrum. I trust the people to see through the crap. Democrats don’t.
“We have seen groups accept millions of dollars from undisclosed donors,…”
Isn’t this precisely what Obama did in his ’08 campaign when the credit card checking software was turned off on his donation site? And didn’t his campaign just do the same thing again a month or so ago? Isn’t that why many of his donations were in odd amounts, like $13.47. Because of the conversions for foreign currency amounts? Hmmmmm?
If there was truly any justice in the world these leftists would be struck dead by lightning.
It is exactly what Obama did. He’s doing it again. Check his donation page.
Good for them. Let them make their case to the people, rather than trying to ignore the Constitution when it is inconvenient.
Absolutely agreed. My first reaction too.
Prediction–they’ll try it a few times, then go back to their old ways of taking over institutions by steallth when they discover their ideas aren’t quite as popular as they have led people to believe. Frauds.
Actually, this is remarkable news. We have a Progressive Socialist arguing that the Constitution isn ot just a document that was written a long time ago by now-dead people. He is admitting that the Constitution has limitations, amendment procedures, and is the binding document of this nation. I sincerely doubt that this would have been the case prior to the Obamacare Supreme Court hearing.
At least Sen. Sanders is honestly trying to repeal a part of the Constitution that is inconveniencing him.
It may be unwise, but it is more honorable than simply passing laws that flout the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.