Voters Would Change Constitution To Limit Corporate Spending In Elections

[babylonsister]

Voters Would Change Constitution To Limit Corporate Spending In Elections


When the Supreme Court invalidated a decades-long ban on corporate spending in federal elections in their Citizens United decision, it was by the narrowest of margins — only one justice. The public is less split on the issue, however. A new poll by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which was provided to the Huffington Post, shows that by a double-digit margin, voters want Congress to use a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision and once again restrict corporations from directly spending on elections.

Forty-six percent of voters said that “Congress should consider drastic measures such as a constitutional amendment overturning” Citizens United, while 36 percent disagreed. Only a fifth of voters were undecided on the matter. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) has already authored such an amendment, and told the Huffington Post, “I really concluded that the Supreme Court actually put the challenge out to us, here in the Congress. They said…Congress, you have no authority to regulate. And when the Court says that so directly, it only leaves us one choice.” Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) are also behind the amendment, which enjoys the strong support of many law professors and former attorneys general.

more...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/23/voters-against-cu/

[Phx_Dem]

1. Yet voters are so stupid they elected Repubicans who support

that practice. Republicans, for whom they voted, also get to confirm (or not) all Supreme Court justices that Obama may appoint, and they nearly took control of the Senate, because of voters, which would have severely limited Obama's ability to appoint liberal justices who would go against this practice.

I'm sorry, but, in general, American voters are ignorant.