Are you in favor of a constitutional amendment to neuter Citizens United?

[DaveinJapan]

I can't make a poll, but it's a fairly simple "yes" or "no", along with your reasoning...

Seems to me it's time for CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES, but maybe nobody else thinks so.

So, yes or no, and why...

Thanks in advance for your input.

[HughMoran]

1. Sure

Though that takes time, perhaps a law passed to neuter them immediately is in order.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Yes.

pb

[tritsofme]

3. I think it is the right thing to do, but the very modest Disclose Act failed

in a Senate with 59 Democrats. I don't know how you could move a constitutional amendment.

[Lance_Boyle]

4. Can't happen now that the Rs took so many state legislatures. n/t

[Renew Deal]

6. The 27th amendment took 200 years to pass

But it still passed.

[Renew Deal]

5. Of course

I don't think the law is interpreted correctly.

[Ian David]

7. Hell yeah. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

8. "Naturally." - The Real Human Beings

"We don't need no steenkin RepubliBorg Corporations pretending to be us."

- The Real Human Beings

[tularetom]

9. Yes and I'm also in favor of an amendment to neuter the justices

that ruled in favor of that clusterfuck.

Given my very limited understanding of constitutional law, I'm unaware of any other way to invalidate this godawful decision. It would take awhile but definitely worth a push to get it done.

[DaveinJapan]

11. There are other ways...

For example, we the people could abolish the Supreme Court.

Not gonna happen, but still...

We've got the power to do whatever the fuck we want to, if we feel like it.

Just sayin...

[MilesColtrane]

23. As nutty as this country is getting, the idea of a Constitutional Convention...

is a little frightening.

They might just end up creating an amendment that states that all citizens have to love Jesus, own a howitzer, and appear on a reality show at least once in their lives.

[kysrsoze]

10. As the ruling effectively limits individuals' free speech, YES! However (pls read and comment)...

I don't think this would ever pass in this environment. IIRC, a Constitutional Amendment would require 2/3 vote in both House and Senate. It'll be a cold day in hell. The only hope we might have is by forcing the Disclose Act to a vote, and I have little hope of that with our current political pacifist Democratic senators.

What I keep wondering and no one has yet to answer, is whether a suit could be brought against the (future) Supreme Court, arguing that the unlimited funds available to corporations and those with massive financial resources makes for an unfair advantage of too much free speech, which effectively drowns out and limits the free speech of individuals who have no such access to funds.

In addition, it's one thing for a corporation, trade association or labor group to have access to free speech on an issue, but it's another for them to advocate for/against a particular candidate. To me, that is akin to a political contribution and would effectively make the donor the equivalent of a PAC or individual donor, and as such, subject to the same rules as other PACs and individuals. Someone please tell me why that is legally not the case.

[DaveinJapan]

12. Good points bro...

Here's my phase II idea, if you're interested...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9486457


"IIRC, a Constitutional Amendment would require 2/3 vote in both House and Senate"

There is another way.

[kysrsoze]

18. I think your overall idea is a good one, but I'm thinking some slight modifications might help

Rather than focusing on a Constitutional Amendment, what if our own version of Citizens United were to use those funds to expose, in real time, what the congressmen and senators on the right are doing to personally screw all of us. I'm envisioning stuff on the level of Matt Taibbe's articles condensed into 30 second TV AND RADIO ADS RUN IN THEIR HOME DISTRICTS, with a reference to a URL which will succinctly explain each issue, complete with links to reliable sources. I'm thinking a meaner, more pointed version of MoveOn, for all seasons. Some potentials examples:

- "Republican senators have just filibustered the Disclose Act, which would force those attack ad buyers to tell the world who is in the organization and who is donating how much to it. Why don't they want you to know that?"
- "THIS particular lobbyist, representing THIS particular corporations, actually wrote this prescription drug bill that THESE congressmen have JUST submitted for a vote in the House. Just who, exactly, are they representing?"

It's really nothing you couldn't find out by watching Rachel Maddow or checking some sources, but our general public, especially those on the right, evidently needs to be spoon-fed any information over and over and over again, until it becomes their bible.

Of course, you would think the White House Press Secretary's office could ty to do something like this (don't get me started on that). Obama said he'd start calling people out on this type of stuff, but the whole Administration is just a bunch of eunuchs. Maybe the general public can take a turn at it.

[Overseas]

13. Of course I am. But my party relied too much on loyal old Dems like me this election.

I'm what we used to call a "Yellow Dog Democrat" -- I'd even vote for a yellow dog as long as it was a Democrat.

Millions of us all along voted Democratic as the "better than Republicans" alternative and our party seems to have relied on that continuing. But alas, that tradition didn't motivate the millions of younger voters who came out for President Obama in 2008.

And the millions who crossed party lines to vote for the Party of FDR wanted bolder action focused on the middle class, reigning in Big Finance and strengthening our social safety nets more decisively in these really rough economic times.

Millions knew how badly the GOP had screwed up and voted with us in 2008. Then they saw us compromising on very important things and begging for cooperation from the guys who crashed our economy and weakened our national security.

And my Democrats kept thinking that my "Forever Democrats" spirit would endure, and it didn't.

And my party ignored us progressive Democrats who called for the impeachment of Bush Cheney to put our country on a new footing.

My party ignored us when Harry Reid threatened to filibuster Judge Alito and we were all excited and wanting him to proceed but he backed down.

My party ignored us progressive Democrats who opposed John Roberts as too pro-corporate too. My party preferred to be reasonable.

And here we are.

[DirkGently]

14. It would be well worth it to look for another way, The interpretation was the real problem.

And amending the Constitution is an extremely steep hill to climb.

[ibegurpard]

15. absolutely

seems like a good thing to work for

[Vincardog]

16. ABBBSOFUCKINGLUTELY

[MadHound]

17. I'll go you one better,

I'm in favor of a Constitutional amendment that would mandate publicly financed election, from dogcatcher to president. That's the only real, true way we can get corporate money out of our government.

[DCKit]

19. Tom Hartman made the comment on his show this week...

that we could amend the 19th Amendment to read "natural" and it would be a moot point.

"Natural person", as in "living, breathing person".

[bigmonkey]

20. Absolutely!

Corporations are not persons, and were actually never ruled to be persons. A complete travesty.

[struggle4progress]

21. Show me actual text before you seek my opinion

[MilesColtrane]

22. Depends on how it is written.

Would it also outlaw PAC and union contributions?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

24. YES! n/t

[mmonk]

25. Absolutely.

[ThoughtCriminal]

26. End corporate "personhood"

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

An Amendment to Reverse Buckley v. Valeo and Dominance of Wealth in Electoral Politics

SECTION 1. For the purposes of providing all citizens, regardless of wealth, a more equal opportunity to influence elections, public policy and run for public office; of furthering the principle of “one person, one vote” and preserving a participatory and democratic republic; as well as the purpose of limiting corruption and the appearance of corruption, we the people declare the unlimited use of money to influence elections incompatible with the principle of equal protection established under the Fourteenth Amendment.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of any federal election.

SECTION 3. Each state shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of elections in that state.

SECTION 4. The power of each state to set limits on contributions and expenditures shall extend to all elections in that state, including initiative and referendum elections, as well as the power to lower any federal limits for the election of members of Congress to represent the people of that state.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Terra Alta]

27. Hell YES

Corporations are NOT people and shouldn't be treated as such. End it NOW.

[bemildred]

28. If that's what it takes.

The whole corporations are persons thing needs to be "revisited".

[donheld]

29. 100%

[dimbear]

30. I favor one more liberal Supreme to reverse it.

Which could happen. Just keep on voting in Dem Presidents.

[the redcoat]

31. I would argue that the CU case

inhibits people's ability to experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by having the ability to manipulate the legislative decision making process in favor of personal/corporate interests.