Obama ENDORSES Bernie Sanders’ Constitutional Amendment to OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED
During a Reddit IAmA chat, President Obama made some big news today by announcing that he supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
During his Reddit chat, Obama touched a topic that very few elected politicians will go near. The president not only discussed the role of money in politics, but he also endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
The president said,
Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and been sponsored in Congress – to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/c60nc6s
A certain Vermont Senator just so happens to have both a constitutional amendment, and a movement behind it to overturn Citizens United.
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
Hundreds of thousands of people have signed the petition in support of the constitutional amendment. People who have been paying attention to the effort to overturn Citizens United know exact what the president was referring to.
Obama was correct. The odds of successfully changing the constitution are small, but the amendment gives opponents a chance to discuss Citizens United each time it is brought up and talked about. The Disclose Act is just the first step. Citizens United must be overturned, and President Obama has provided a huge shot in the arm to Bernie Sanders and his movement to stop the conservative billionaires from buying our government.
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-endorses-bernie-sanders-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
You seem to conveniently ignore the many tax and liability-shielding "rights" that are conferred to LLCs.
All these are derived from statue and tax code. The corporation is a legally created entity. It is not a natural person and is NOT entitled to constitutional protections afforded to persons.
Quit trollin! 
You pick one execption and want us to believe it proves the "rule", whatever you think it is...
We got it. You're concerned.
NEXT.
But they are not the Gold Standard for what is and is not constitutional, and hiding behind that figleaf is lame as well as revealing.....
You guys ROCK!
yes yes yes 
Yup. After this, therefor because of this; or, as the Latins may have said, post hoc ergor prompter hoc. 
He is a leader.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Now let's GOTV!
Keep pushing. What you see in Republican Convention is the 1% digging their hole deeper. Keep pushing them in that hole and bury them. And remember, political decisions are about political will and pressure, so don't get (too 
) caught up in legal finesses.
I find it interesting that the first section of the proposed amendment -- <i>"The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations"</i> -- directly contradicts the second section -- <i>"do not limit the freedom of the press."</i> The press, the media, are mostly not natural persons, but businesses: newspapers, magazines, film distributors, commercial blogs, etc. And that was true when the 1st amendment was framed. Many of the key 1st amendment decisions the Supreme Court has made over the years have commercial interests as the key party. Often, represented by the ACLU. Saying that there is a Constitutional right to a free press, but only for natural persons, means almost nothing. Do y'all really want Congress to be able to censor everything from political books to pornography, when the material is published and distributed by businesses? Really?!
The <i>Citizens United</i> case decided whether law could restrict distribution of a movie. What makes anyone think that the Supreme Court would have decided differently, were this amendment in force, if it paid attention to that Section 2 restriction that the amendment does <i>"not limit the freedom of the press"?</i>
I would be happy to see reasonable lines drawn here. The problem is defining what those are. The proposed amendment is a mess, and because of that, essentially tells the court to "figure something out." Maybe that would work. But it would be better if those proposing amendments gave some thought to <i>why</i> the Supreme Court ruled as it did, and tried to come up with some clear principles for drawing lines, rather than just saying "this," but not really too much of "this." So far, I haven't seen much of that.
First, we should have transparency laws. Second, we should have laws banning all corporate donations to the candidates and campaigns themselves.
We have neither at the federal level. Neither are prohibited by Citizens United. On transparency laws, the court didn't just point out that the ruling left the door open to that, but practically invited Congress to walk through it. The Republicans blocked that. Of course.
But don't fool yourself. If we can't pass simple laws that move in the right direction, a Constitutional amendment is out of the question.
Fortunately, the Prez is also a billion times better than Romney as a human being, and on every other issue.
