Democratic Representative Introduces Two Bills To OVERTURN Citizens United Ruling
One day after the three-year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling for Citizens United, the fight to overturn it has begun. Two bills were introduced by U.S. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts: one that declares that corporations are not people, and one that says that Congress has the power to regulate the financing of political campaigns.
Both pieces of legislation are the first step in what will likely be a long and bitter fight to make an addition to the U.S. Constitution. If successful, it would mark the 28th Amendment to this country’s sacred document of governance. The last time an amendment was ratified was in 1992. It took over 200 years for it to pass the 2/3 majority of both Houses and the 3/4 majority of the states to meet the requirements. Most probably don’t remember it. It determined when changes could be made to Congress’ pay. Most would not consider that a life-altering change. However, many would agree that the current proposed Amendment does matter to them.
Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled for Citizens United, 80% said that they disagreed with the ruling. Since then, sentiment has softened some, with 62% saying they opposed the ruling. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center had similar findings. Of those who were familiar with the Supreme Court ruling, 65% felt that the Super PACs had a negative impact on campaigns. Surely, supporters realize that as time passes, their window of opportunity will get smaller.
That’s why the groups that support the Amendment are making sure people don’t forget. Groups pushing for the Amendment include Free Speech for People, Public Citizen, and People for the American Way. Move to Amend is another group that has worked hard to gather support for the change. They have regular rallies to spread the word, their website is full of information on the topic, and their petition has over 250,000 signers. Whichever version you look at, they all seem to come to the same conclusion – corporations are not people. Congressman McGovern stated it best when he proposed his version:
= new reply since forum marked as read
That is a GREAT quote, btw: "Corporations don’t breathe. They don’t have kids. And they don’t die in wars."
But if you care about ensuring that entities like DU, the NAACP, MoveOn, labor unions, and the Democratic National Committee have free speech rights and are protected against warrantless, unreasonable searches, you should be opposed to McGovern's amendment as drafted.
You realize that under the proposed amendment, the Watergate break-in could have been conducted legally by Nixon simply directing the FBI to go into the DNC headquarters and take whatever they want since there would be no constitutional protection against such searches and seizures of the DNC (not a "natural person"
. Or that the damages award against the NAACP for organizing a boycott against Claiborne Hardware would not have been overturned because the NAACP would have no first amendment rights?
Well said Sir!
Ralph Nader gave the nation this law by getting 10 million voters to stay home in 2000
because, well, the big freakin' egotist said both candidates were the same 10 million times
while being financed by the republican party to do what he did
then comes along Bush who gives us Alito and Roberts and voila this law enacted by the courts.
Of course without Ralph Nader, there wouldn't be this law
now, so many Naderites have this law as their #1 whine.
Gee, the Naderites should look in the mirror, because, for all intents and purposes, Ralph Nader's name should be on it
for he wrote it, he financed it, he gave the nation this (proverbially of course), but it is
his. HIS blood is on and in this bill.
He liked what he did, laughing all the way to the bank
because Bush and Gore and Kerry and President Obama are one and the same
except without Ralph Nader, the court by this time this bill was looked at, would have been a liberal court
Thank's Ralph Nader.
Tip of my hat to you.
No matter which way you slice and dice it, it is 100% due to Ralph Nader in 2000.
[img]
[/img]
remember, it will take Hillary45 to make the court change complete.
then this can be eradicated by the court.
alot quicker than any constitutional amendment which normally takes well over a decade anyhow.
As example, it would allow a Republican Congress to shut down this and other liberal websites. 1) Virtually everything posted here supports or opposes candidates for various offices, directly or indirectly. Certainly in election years. 2) It takes money to run this website.
Yeah, I know. Everyone here wants it to be used against big corporations, and in a fair fashion. What it does, though, is give Congress the power to regulate political speech, whenever money is involved in its production or distribution. Any Congress. For any purpose and in any way. That's a big stick. Does anyone here think, if the GOP managed to get a majority in both houses, that it wouldn't be used to shut down liberal speech?
That's not liberal. That's nuts.
Let me point out another law Congress could pass under this amendment. It could ban all political speech over the internet or phones. 1) Political speech by its nature influences elections. 2) It costs money to be connected.
The only political speech this amendment leaves Constitutionally protected is anything said face to face. Providing no one spent money to get to the meeting.
