Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

[DearAbby]

WASHINGTON - By a double-digit margin, voters want Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that allows unlimited corporate spending on elections, a new poll paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has found.

Nearly a fifth of voters remain undecided on an issue that has only been live since the Supreme Court overturned a century of legislation and precedent in a 5-4 ruling whose effect was visible to anybody with a television through the months of September and October. Of those who have an opinion, 46 percent said that "Congress should consider drastic measures such as a constitutional amendment overturning the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections," while 36 percent disagreed. The survey, which was provided to The Huffington Post, was conducted by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling on November second and third and reached 548 voters.

A Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. But, said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the author of an amendment that would overturn Citizens United, there have been times in American history when amendments have caught fire and ripped right through the land. "The process is very rigorous, and it should be," Edwards told HuffPost. "But there have been plenty of examples of amendments to the Constitution that have happened, actually, with fairly rapid-fire when they catch on."

Edwards, an attorney, said she wrote the simple text of her amendment the night that Citizens United was handed down. "I really concluded that the Supreme Court actually put the challenge out to us, here in the Congress. They said, you know, you could make a judgment that this is not really good for the system, but the fact is that the Constitution doesn't allow you to regulate this. Congress, you have no-- the Court told us directly-- Congress, you have no authority to regulate. And when the Court says that so directly, it only leaves us one choice," said Edwards.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/voters-strongly-back-amen_n_787526.html?fbwall

[alfredo]

1. Public financing now!

[RKP5637]

2. Recommend!!! n/t

[Kingofalldems]

3. K and R for the Teabag crowd

They won't like this one. And why? They don't know.

[the redcoat]

4. Oh, what convenient timing. nt

[Blue Owl]

5. P.S. Fuck You, Supreme Court 5

n/t

[Kalyke]

6. And, sadly, it will never get passed. Sigh.

[Lucky 13]

7. I honestly don't believe this will EVER happen.

99% of the elected politicians have been bought by the very companies we want them to amend the constitution to restrict.

Once the new class of congressmen start, this will be dead in the water. And if we're hoping for a lame duck session victory, well you can forget that too. Most of the dems departing were blue dog pussies anyway.

And to top it all off... I don't think this President or this administration would support it. All evidence points to them obviously and unabashedly kissing corporate ass at every available opportunity. There's no reason to think this pattern will change.

It's not a matter of R or D anymore. Left or right. It's all about who is with the corporations and who is with the people... and there are very very few in that last category.

[earth mom]

11. I don't want to admit it's a losing battle, but everything you said is true.

:argh:

[eallen]

8. So, tell us how that would be phrased so as not to shut down magazines, networks, etc?

The issue is not as simple as people want to think it is. Get Archer-Daniel Midland's money out of political coffers? Hell, yeah. Tell Huffingtonpost they can't spend any money advocating or criticizing candidates, two months before an election? Well.... maybe not.

But they're both corporations.

So tell me the phrasing of the rule you want. Law has to be precise.

:hippie:

[Canuckistanian]

9. The voters?

What do they have to do with this?

[truedelphi]

10. I really wish that maddow and Olbermann would start pointing out how active many communities are on

The issue of putting together another Constitutional Amendment. This one would deprive Corporations of the "right" to be seen as "persons."

In other words, use their time on TV to talk about the positives we can be doing, rather than how Bad Bill O'Reilly is, or yet another segment on (Take your pick of repeated often topics.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. There is a better way -

outlaw corporate personhood. Citizens United is a direct outgrowth of that misbegotten notion. Outlawing corporate personhood would not only invalidate the Citizens United decision, but many, many other abuses inflicted on us by that pernicious idea.

[Quantess]

13. I wonder what Antonin Scalia's approval rating is?

Or Clarence Thomas's?

Both those creeps need to lose their jobs.