HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Congressman seeks to over...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:24 PM

Congressman seeks to overturn Citizens United

Source: Associated Press

Congressman seeks to overturn Citizens United
By Associated Press, None 9:49 a.m.Feb. 11, 2013

WASHINGTON A Democratic Minnesota congressman is introducing a constitutional amendment designed to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case that lifted many restrictions on corporate spending in political elections.

Rep. Rick Nolan unveiled the proposal on Monday along with members of Move to Amend, a grassroots coalition that has been seeking support on the local level in communities for the amendment. They say political campaign spending should not be a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling paved the way for a flood of campaign cash from corporations, unions and wealthy interests.

Any effort to amend the U.S. Constitution faces daunting hurdles.


Read more: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/11/congressman-seeks-to-overturn-citizens-united/

10 replies, 1947 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Congressman seeks to overturn Citizens United (Original post)
Judi Lynn Feb 2013 OP
Brickbat Feb 2013 #1
jehop61 Feb 2013 #2
kmlisle Feb 2013 #3
Chakab Feb 2013 #4
roseBudd Feb 2013 #5
Lobo27 Feb 2013 #6
Uncle Joe Feb 2013 #7
Maineman Feb 2013 #8
Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #9
onenote Feb 2013 #10

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:30 PM

1. Hey, that's my congressman!

Love him. I am so, so happy he won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:54 PM

2. Great news

Perhaps Sen. Franken can put his efforts into an actual bill along with this Rep. Instead of asking us to sign a measly petition. Or perhaps the Senator is just trying to build up a donor list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:58 PM

3. Its a start.

My home town just passed an endorsement of this bill and the organizers expect it to take a long tome to reach thier goal. LIke the DREAM act which has been through congress many times this will probably do the same. But if we could get it on the ballet I would expect results like those in Wyoming and Montana in the 2012 election where 70% of the electorate voted for a similar bill. Like so many things the American Peopl want we just need to get it past Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:14 PM

4. Bullshit. I've had enough with the pretense that there's

going to be any structural change achieved through legislation when we've got a gerrymandered House run by crazies and essentially the same rules in the Senate that will allow Republicans (and establishment Democrats) to block whatever they want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:17 PM

5. Go forth DUers and join or create a local Move to Amend...

This is going to take lots of advocacy by the 99%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:26 PM

6. This is what the TyT guys

are trying to do through the country. Called Wolfpac, they have started initiatives in many states. Kinda refreshing if you ask me. They even have one here in Texas of all places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:28 PM

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:39 PM

8. Move to Amend is a fairly large coalition of individuals and groups who have been working hard to

get an amendment or two passed. They have been working locally for the most part, all across the country. The goal and the need are very serious for our democracy. Please do anyting you can to help. See movetoamend.org.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:19 PM

9. Horrible amendment.

This would strip all corporations (such as DemocraticUnderground LLC) and nonprofits (such as Planned Parenthood) of all constitutional protections.

So the police could raid the offices of DU and confiscate DU's stuff for no reason, without violating the Fourth Amendment.

And imagine how hostile local authorities would love to treat Planned Parenthood once their constitutional protections were removed.

Unions, too, would lose all of their constitutional rights under this proposal.

I can only assume that this is cynical grandstanding by people who know very well that such a ridiculous amendment stands no chance whatsoever of passing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:27 PM

10. Agreed

From a post in another thread on this, here are some examples of some cases this amendment would reverse:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware: holding that NAACP (a corporate entity) was protected by the First Amendment and could not be sued for damages for organizing a boycott against Claiborne Hardware.

NY Times v. US: holding that the NY Times could not be prevented from publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Flynt v. Hustler: holding that Hustler magazine could not be sued for running a satirical ad that allegedly caused Jerry Falwell to suffer "emotional distress"

Times Film Corp. v. Chicago : striking down a Chicago law that required movie companies to submit their movies to a government agency for review before they could be shown.

Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp v. Regents of the University of the State of New York: striking down a law that made it unlawful to show a motion picture whose "subject matter is adultery presented as being right and desirable for certain people"

Some other situations that would be allowed by the amendment:

The break in of the Democratic National HQ at the Watergate could have been accomplished lawfully since the DNC would not be protected against unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures. (Indeed, the government could, without warrant or cause, seize all of the records of DU, or MoveOn or the teachers union). Any information you share with a corporation (purchases, memberships, etc etc) -- you have no privacy expectation if you share it with a corporation that has no constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Planned Parenthood providing information about birth control or your local pharmacy selling condoms or birth control pills? Could be banned. As an individual you would have the right to possess such information and/or use birth control -- you just couldn't get it from a corporate entity or someone working for a corporate entity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread