Senate Advances Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Here's hoping it goes through, although I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm also not sure it'll make that much of a difference. Citizens United gave corporations the ability to spend unlimited amounts toward campaign ads, but more of the big, problem corporations don't actually want their names attached to their donations. I believe that's where the whole 'dark money' things came from. Now that those laundry routes are in place, I don't see how the corporations are going to simply stop funneling money just because the Citizens United gets overturned.

Monkey said:

Here's hoping the House will follow suit.

Click to expand...

When blue whales become astronauts.

Not only is this incarnation of the U.S. House of Representatives going to be unreceptive to such an idea, the next one, to be elected in less than two months, is almost certain to be more hostile.

And even if the miracle should happen that the proposed Amendment passes the House, it will need to be approved by the legislatures of 38 U.S. States. Good luck with that one.

The last proposed Amendment to the Constitution, passed by the Senate and House four decades ago, was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). It foundered at the level of state legislatures, largely due to the argument by opponents that it would require same-sex public bathrooms.

That was not a joke.

The supporters of Citizens United have successfully argued that money = speech, and that therefore the monetary support of political candidates is an issue of freedom of expression.

A short version of that argument is: Money talks.

And you bastards who consider yourselves free citizens of this "Republic" better damn well listen. Or else.

caw

Well, it's not actually "a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United," it's a constitutional amendment to grant Congress a whole shitload of new power over the electoral process, and the Supremes (the same folks who gave us CU, btw) the power to approve or disapprove of the exercise of that new power.

It's surprising how many articles (pro and con) that discuss the amendment fail to include the text of the amendment. I wonder why that might be?

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.

Click to expand...

That's an awfully blank slate to hand over to the oligarchy, IMO. This feels like another "pass the bill to find out what's in it" moment to me. There's no "there" there. They're selling a pig in a poke, and people are lining up to buy it.

Show of hands. How many people really want to grant that much power over free speech to the clowns in charge today? What about the clowns that gain power in 2 or 4 or x years?

CU was a terrible ruling, IMO. I don't see how this would make things better, and it has the potential to make them much, much worse.

blacbird said:

When blue whales become astronauts.

Not only is this incarnation of the U.S. House of Representatives going to be unreceptive to such an idea, the next one, to be elected in less than two months, is almost certain to be more hostile.

And even if the miracle should happen that the proposed Amendment passes the House, it will need to be approved by the legislatures of 38 U.S. States. Good luck with that one.

The last proposed Amendment to the Constitution, passed by the Senate and House four decades ago, was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). It foundered at the level of state legislatures, largely due to the argument by opponents that it would require same-sex public bathrooms.

That was not a joke.

The supporters of Citizens United have successfully argued that money = speech, and that therefore the monetary support of political candidates is an issue of freedom of expression.

A short version of that argument is: Money talks.

And you bastards who consider yourselves free citizens of this "Republic" better damn well listen. Or else.

caw

Click to expand...

Actually the last amendment passed was in 1992, a year after I was born.

Lillith1991 said:

Actually the last amendment passed was in 1992, a year after I was born.

Click to expand...

True, but Blacbird said "last proposed amendment". I believe the amendment you're referring to was oddly enough proposed in 1789.

I have to agree with Don. Giving Congress and the states the power to set "reasonable" limits on the raising and spending of money sounds like a recipe for embedding machine politics in the Constitution.

If you want to do something to "take money out of politics" (hahaha good luck), this ain't the way.

Even if it doesn't go any farther, a 79-18 vote in the Senate on an issue like this is a sign of hope. If not this Congress, maybe one in the near future will pass it.

Amadan said:

I have to agree with Don. Giving Congress and the states the power to set "reasonable" limits on the raising and spending of money sounds like a recipe for embedding machine politics in the Constitution.

If you want to do something to "take money out of politics" (hahaha good luck), this ain't the way.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I loathe the CU ruling, but there has got to be a better way. Cleverer minds than mine have failed to come up with one -- or with one that sticks, at any rate. I am not optimistic. Personally, I think we're attacking it from the wrong angle. It's the extremely large, behind the scenes sort of manuvering that is the problem. I don't even necessarily have a problem with large donations, so long as it's A) from an individual and B) completely transparent.

Then again, I'm still working on my first cuppa, so I may refine that later.

Here's Ted Olson explaining some realities: http://online.wsj.com/articles/theodore-olson-harry-reid-rewrites-the-first-amendment-1410124101

Here's the text of the Amendment: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text

This is all about the status quo, about protecting entrenched politicians and the control of the national parties. It's pretty ugly and pretty blatant.

But here's hoping it passes. The government we get, we deserve...

Section 2 is fit.

Section 1 is a bit (too) vague.

Section 3 is fit.

clintl said:

Even if it doesn't go any farther, a 79-18 vote in the Senate on an issue like this is a sign of hope. If not this Congress, maybe one in the near future will pass it.

Click to expand...

Note: That vote was to agree to discuss this topic, nothing else.

So, instead of talking about immigration, minimum wage or anything else pressing, they're talking about giving themselves a blank check on how to finance political campaigns--which they directly benefit from.

Yeah, good use of their time and our money.

As Don noted, the thread title is a little misleading, as Congress can't technically "overturn" a Supreme Court decision.

In any case, seems like a pretty bad idea, imo. But I have no doubt that Congress would only use their new powers to make sure their re-election campaigns are as fair and corruption-free as possible.

Cranky said:

Indeed. I loathe the CU ruling, but there has got to be a better way.

Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law granting to groups of individuals organized under a fictitious legal umbrella any rights or privileges. All rights and privileges granted under the laws of congress are granted to all individual citizens of these United States, and only to individual citizens of these United States."

Of course, that would mean dismantling most of the legal system, ending tax exemptions for churches and non-profits, and stripping corporations of limited liability...


ETA: It took a couple of rewrites, and may get a couple more, but you get the general idea.

Don said:

Show of hands? How many people really want to grant that much power over free speech to the clowns in charge today?

Click to expand...

Everybody recall my point a few posts up about money = speech?

The quoted material above is a type specimen of this thinking. Show of hands? How many people think that having more money should give you greater freedom of expression, legally, than having less money does?

Or should we just become the United States of the Walton Heirs and the Koch Brothers?

caw

Don said:

"Congress shall make no law granting to groups of individuals organized under a fictitious legal umbrella any rights or privileges. All rights and privileges granted under the laws of congress are granted to all individual citizens of these United States, and only to individual citizens of these United States."

Of course, that would mean dismantling most of the legal system, ending tax exemptions for churches and non-profits, and stripping corporations of limited liability...


ETA: It took a couple of rewrites, and may get a couple more, but you get the general idea.

Click to expand...

Ah Hell, just pass it and let Obama or the next presidents rewrite it as they see fit with presidential discretion, especially when congress leaves town.

blacbird said:

Everybody recall my point a few posts up about money = speech?

The quoted material above is a type specimen of this thinking. Show of hands? How many people think that having more money should give you greater freedom of expression, legally, than having less money does?

Or should we just become the United States of the Walton Heirs and the Koch Brothers?

caw

Click to expand...

Specifically how does the proposed amendment solve the CU decision problem?

blacbird said:

Everybody recall my point a few posts up about money = speech?

The quoted material above is a type specimen of this thinking. Show of hands? How many people think that having more money should give you greater freedom of expression, legally, than having less money does?

Or should we just become the United States of the Walton Heirs and the Koch Brothers?

caw

Click to expand...

Don said:

Specifically how does the proposed amendment solve the CU decision problem?

Click to expand...

Show of hands, who thinks you're both getting it wrong?

*looks around*

Oh, it's just me I guess...

The whole thing is screwed until we get publicly funded election campaigns.

Imagine if our politicians never got a single campaign donation ever again. They'd have to run on issues, or (perish the thought) their record.

robeiae said:

Show of hands, who thinks you're both getting it wrong?

*looks around*

Oh, it's just me I guess...

Click to expand...

The alien will raise its hand if you will recognise its hand.

Is it an illegal alien?

By which set of laws? Immigration or transmigration?

I'll have to check with ExxonMobil the government...

Monkey said:

Here's hoping the House will follow suit.

Click to expand...

Which House?

You mean The White House? Or International House of Pancakes? 'Cause I know you don't mean John Boehner's House of Representatives.

They don't pass anything there except subpoenas, lawsuits and gas.

clintl said:

Even if it doesn't go any farther, a 79-18 vote in the Senate on an issue like this is a sign of hope. If not this Congress, maybe one in the near future will pass it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure McConnell and Boehner got that hign on their "Honey Do..." list.

blacbird said:

Everybody recall my point a few posts up about money = speech?

The quoted material above is a type specimen of this thinking. Show of hands? How many people think that having more money should give you greater freedom of expression, legally, than having less money does?

Or should we just become the United States of the Walton Heirs and the Koch Brothers?

Click to expand...

You mean we're not already?

A plutocracy begets an oligarchy, though some prefer to rail against the latter while ignoring the former.

Don said:

Specifically how does the proposed amendment solve the CU decision problem?

Click to expand...

Here's one way:

The Koch brothers may spend $290 million on this election. That’s how much 5,270 American households make in a year.

And here's another:

The reelection rate in 2012 for an incumbent Senator was 91% and 90% for an incumbent member of the House and it hasn't dipped below 55% in 34 years.

Money talks, bullshit walks and politicians are bought and paid for and reelected time and again by the suckers whom never see the scam coming.

But unlimited money is supposed to be "free speech?" Only for those who can afford the price of the politicians it buys.

If that's a good thing for democracy I have one question: HOW?

Again, I don't disagree that CU was a bad decision. I don't disagree that the system, as currently rigged, gives too much power to those with lots of bucks to spend, and does way to much to assure that those already in power stay in power. I haven't seen one single person in this thread argue otherwise.

Read. The. Amendment.

nighttimer said:

Money talks, bullshit walks and politicians are bought and paid for and reelected time and again by the suckers whom never see the scam coming.

Click to expand...

There's nothing in the proposed amendment that indicates those problems will be resolved. There's nothing in the proposed amendment that guarantees the Koch brothers will no longer be able to buy elections. There's nothing in the proposed amendment that indicates incumbents will have a harder time getting reelected.

There's nothing in the proposed amendment except a guarantee that those already in power will have even more control over the electoral system than they have now.

So again, the same questions arise. How will this amendment, as written, prevent the Koch brothers from buying elections? How will this amendment correct the problem with incumbent reelection rates?

Is it simply a case of "we have to do something, even if it's wrong?? All I hear is assumptions that the magical unicorns currently in charge will somehow fart rainbows that make elections fair again if only we hand them more power over the process.

The only thing this amendment does as written is give more power to those currently in power to change how the election system works. So we can expect those already in power to change the system so that their odds of being reelected are reduced and lobbyists will have a harder time buying them a seat at the poker table? Srsly?

As I said in my first post; This feels like another "pass the bill to find out what's in it" moment to me. There's no "there" there. They're selling a pig in a poke, and people are lining up to buy it.