Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential

[merrill]

The 5-4 Citizens United decision struck down bipartisan clean election laws and declared that Congress could not limit so-called "independent" spending by corporations or others. In the two years since that decision, the 1% have been playing an increasingly outsized role in our elections, holding even greater sway than they had before 2010.

Deep-pocketed CEOs and corporations have filtered many millions of dollars through Super PACs like American Action Network and secretly-funded non-profit groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, spending made possible by Citizens United and the district court decision SpeechNow.org v. F.E.C.


Exceptionally Costly, and Exceptionally Unpopular
The first elections after Citizens United were the most expensive in U.S. history, with more spending coming from outside groups than from the candidates themselves. In modern elections, 9 out of 10 races are decided by who raises more campaign cash.

Given this reality, it stretches the imagination to believe elected officials won't be indebted to those deep-pocketed donors who help them get the edge over their opponent.

The 2012 elections are expected to once again set new records for spending. And the money that flows into this year's campaigns will come overwhelmingly from the top one percent. Only a tiny sliver of Americans donate to elections, and the bottom ninety-nine-point-five percent who can afford to contribute will have their dollars drowned out by the million-dollar contributions made possible by Citizens United.

The decision is not only unleashing an exceptional amount of spending -- it is also exceedingly unpopular. A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday shows 65 percent of voters from both parties who know about the Citizens United decision believe it has had a negative impact on politics.

Additionally, a poll released Wednesday from Main Street Alliance, the American Sustainable Business Council, and Small Business Majority shows that 66 percent of small business owners believe Citizens United decision has been bad for small businesses, compared to only 9 percent who think it's good -- a margin of 7 to 1.

Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential | Common Dreams

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amending the Constitution in this matter is idiotic – just as idiotic as a BBA.

If voters spent time researching the issues and candidates, and voted predicated on facts and knowledge, Citizens United would be rendered moot.

And such an amendment would clearly conflict with the First Amendment, as the issue is about protected speech, not campaign funding or ‘corporate personhood.’

 

[occupied]

The only real cure is to make huge corporate funding the kiss of death for any candidate's chances. Every candidate from now on should have a published ratio of corporate/private donations. Maybe someone will make a website that does just that.

 

[merrill]

The only real cure is to make huge corporate funding the kiss of death for any candidate's chances. Every candidate from now on should have a published ratio of corporate/private donations. Maybe someone will make a website that does just that.

The Supreme Court over stepped its authority on this matter and should have rejected hearing it.

 

[daveman]

Leftist butthurt is not sufficient reason to amend the Constitution.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Brunch with Bernie - January 20, 2012 - YouTube

​

 

[Avatar4321]

So you want to abolish free speech because people you dont like can speak. Fabulous.

 

[Wiseacre]

The 2010 midterm elections were close in terms of money spent by both sides. Cry me a river dude, Obama is going to raise close to a billion dollars this year, which means your argument is full of holes.

I do think however, that every political ad oughta be tied to a campaign, if nobody will sign up to accept responsibility for the ad then it shouldn't air.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential

Let's HEAR IT!! for......​

NEW MEXICO!!!!!!​

"Another blow has been struck against Citizens United, and this time it’s not by a city council. The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday, calling for Congress to overturn Citizens United via Constitutional Amendment. The final vote was 38-29 with one independent and one Republican joining Democrats to rebuke the controversial Supreme Court case that has allowed corporations and the super wealthy to donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates through the unfettered use of Super PACS."

. . . . ​

 

[Avatar4321]

You want to abolish the First amendment? Seriously?

We are seriously screwed up.

 

[Wiseacre]

Lib/dems do not want to abolish the 1st amendment, they just want to do so for those who oppose them. Or at least anyone or any organization that they perceive as a threat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court over stepped its authority on this matter and should have rejected hearing it.

Be careful with that – when the Court rules in a manner you agree with, you’ll just look foolish.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The 2010 midterm elections were close in terms of money spent by both sides. Cry me a river dude, Obama is going to raise close to a billion dollars this year, which means your argument is full of holes.

I do think however, that every political ad oughta be tied to a campaign, if nobody will sign up to accept responsibility for the ad then it shouldn't air.

Citizen's United is what allows those "unaffiliated" ads.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 5-4 Citizens United decision struck down bipartisan clean election laws and declared that Congress could not limit so-called "independent" spending by corporations or others. In the two years since that decision, the 1% have been playing an increasingly outsized role in our elections, holding even greater sway than they had before 2010.

Deep-pocketed CEOs and corporations have filtered many millions of dollars through Super PACs like American Action Network and secretly-funded non-profit groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, spending made possible by Citizens United and the district court decision SpeechNow.org v. F.E.C.


Exceptionally Costly, and Exceptionally Unpopular
The first elections after Citizens United were the most expensive in U.S. history, with more spending coming from outside groups than from the candidates themselves. In modern elections, 9 out of 10 races are decided by who raises more campaign cash.

Given this reality, it stretches the imagination to believe elected officials won't be indebted to those deep-pocketed donors who help them get the edge over their opponent.

The 2012 elections are expected to once again set new records for spending. And the money that flows into this year's campaigns will come overwhelmingly from the top one percent. Only a tiny sliver of Americans donate to elections, and the bottom ninety-nine-point-five percent who can afford to contribute will have their dollars drowned out by the million-dollar contributions made possible by Citizens United.

The decision is not only unleashing an exceptional amount of spending -- it is also exceedingly unpopular. A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday shows 65 percent of voters from both parties who know about the Citizens United decision believe it has had a negative impact on politics.

Additionally, a poll released Wednesday from Main Street Alliance, the American Sustainable Business Council, and Small Business Majority shows that 66 percent of small business owners believe Citizens United decision has been bad for small businesses, compared to only 9 percent who think it's good -- a margin of 7 to 1.

Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential | Common Dreams

1. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com



2. BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING - LABOR - Union Is Accused of Violations - Brief - NYTimes.com



3. Don't ya' just hate it when those unions buy elections!!!????

Jeez.....how do they have the right to spend that kind of money in elections??
Heck....they aren't people......they're....they're.....UNIONS!!!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The 5-4 Citizens United decision struck down bipartisan clean election laws and declared that Congress could not limit so-called "independent" spending by corporations or others. In the two years since that decision, the 1% have been playing an increasingly outsized role in our elections, holding even greater sway than they had before 2010.

Deep-pocketed CEOs and corporations have filtered many millions of dollars through Super PACs like American Action Network and secretly-funded non-profit groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, spending made possible by Citizens United and the district court decision SpeechNow.org v. F.E.C.


Exceptionally Costly, and Exceptionally Unpopular
The first elections after Citizens United were the most expensive in U.S. history, with more spending coming from outside groups than from the candidates themselves. In modern elections, 9 out of 10 races are decided by who raises more campaign cash.

Given this reality, it stretches the imagination to believe elected officials won't be indebted to those deep-pocketed donors who help them get the edge over their opponent.

The 2012 elections are expected to once again set new records for spending. And the money that flows into this year's campaigns will come overwhelmingly from the top one percent. Only a tiny sliver of Americans donate to elections, and the bottom ninety-nine-point-five percent who can afford to contribute will have their dollars drowned out by the million-dollar contributions made possible by Citizens United.

The decision is not only unleashing an exceptional amount of spending -- it is also exceedingly unpopular. A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday shows 65 percent of voters from both parties who know about the Citizens United decision believe it has had a negative impact on politics.

Additionally, a poll released Wednesday from Main Street Alliance, the American Sustainable Business Council, and Small Business Majority shows that 66 percent of small business owners believe Citizens United decision has been bad for small businesses, compared to only 9 percent who think it's good -- a margin of 7 to 1.

Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential | Common Dreams

1. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com



2. BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING - LABOR - Union Is Accused of Violations - Brief - NYTimes.com



3. Don't ya' just hate it when those unions buy elections!!!????

Jeez.....how do they have the right to spend that kind of money in elections??
Heck....they aren't people......they're....they're.....UNIONS!!!

That's Citizen's United too, you know.

 

[konradv]

Amending the Constitution in this matter is idiotic – just as idiotic as a BBA.

If voters spent time researching the issues and candidates, and voted predicated on facts and knowledge, Citizens United would be rendered moot.

And such an amendment would clearly conflict with the First Amendment, as the issue is about protected speech, not campaign funding or ‘corporate personhood.’

One amendment can change another, so that wouldn't be a problem. You're depending on a pipe dream that isn't going to happen, when the real reason government isn't listening to the governed is all the money special interests use to buy our representitives' votes. IMO, public financing is the only solution.

 

[konradv]

The 5-4 Citizens United decision struck down bipartisan clean election laws and declared that Congress could not limit so-called "independent" spending by corporations or others. In the two years since that decision, the 1% have been playing an increasingly outsized role in our elections, holding even greater sway than they had before 2010.

Deep-pocketed CEOs and corporations have filtered many millions of dollars through Super PACs like American Action Network and secretly-funded non-profit groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, spending made possible by Citizens United and the district court decision SpeechNow.org v. F.E.C.


Exceptionally Costly, and Exceptionally Unpopular
The first elections after Citizens United were the most expensive in U.S. history, with more spending coming from outside groups than from the candidates themselves. In modern elections, 9 out of 10 races are decided by who raises more campaign cash.

Given this reality, it stretches the imagination to believe elected officials won't be indebted to those deep-pocketed donors who help them get the edge over their opponent.

The 2012 elections are expected to once again set new records for spending. And the money that flows into this year's campaigns will come overwhelmingly from the top one percent. Only a tiny sliver of Americans donate to elections, and the bottom ninety-nine-point-five percent who can afford to contribute will have their dollars drowned out by the million-dollar contributions made possible by Citizens United.

The decision is not only unleashing an exceptional amount of spending -- it is also exceedingly unpopular. A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday shows 65 percent of voters from both parties who know about the Citizens United decision believe it has had a negative impact on politics.

Additionally, a poll released Wednesday from Main Street Alliance, the American Sustainable Business Council, and Small Business Majority shows that 66 percent of small business owners believe Citizens United decision has been bad for small businesses, compared to only 9 percent who think it's good -- a margin of 7 to 1.

Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential | Common Dreams

1. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com

2. BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING - LABOR - Union Is Accused of Violations - Brief - NYTimes.com

3. Don't ya' just hate it when those unions buy elections!!!????

Jeez.....how do they have the right to spend that kind of money in elections??
Heck....they aren't people......they're....they're.....UNIONS!!!

Your point? You agree there should be a Constitutional amendment?

 

[konradv]

I can't believe the reactions!

Who thinks government is listening to what you want?

Why isn't it listening to you?

Who is it listening to?

Why are they being listened to?

THE MONEY!!!

 

[Cowman]

So you want to abolish free speech because people you dont like can speak. Fabulous.

If corporations are people, you my friend are not a person.

 

[bripat9643]

The chances of this passing are zero.

The 5-4 Citizens United decision struck down bipartisan clean election laws and declared that Congress could not limit so-called "independent" spending by corporations or others. In the two years since that decision, the 1% have been playing an increasingly outsized role in our elections, holding even greater sway than they had before 2010.

Deep-pocketed CEOs and corporations have filtered many millions of dollars through Super PACs like American Action Network and secretly-funded non-profit groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, spending made possible by Citizens United and the district court decision SpeechNow.org v. F.E.C.


Exceptionally Costly, and Exceptionally Unpopular
The first elections after Citizens United were the most expensive in U.S. history, with more spending coming from outside groups than from the candidates themselves. In modern elections, 9 out of 10 races are decided by who raises more campaign cash.

Given this reality, it stretches the imagination to believe elected officials won't be indebted to those deep-pocketed donors who help them get the edge over their opponent.

The 2012 elections are expected to once again set new records for spending. And the money that flows into this year's campaigns will come overwhelmingly from the top one percent. Only a tiny sliver of Americans donate to elections, and the bottom ninety-nine-point-five percent who can afford to contribute will have their dollars drowned out by the million-dollar contributions made possible by Citizens United.

The decision is not only unleashing an exceptional amount of spending -- it is also exceedingly unpopular. A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday shows 65 percent of voters from both parties who know about the Citizens United decision believe it has had a negative impact on politics.

Additionally, a poll released Wednesday from Main Street Alliance, the American Sustainable Business Council, and Small Business Majority shows that 66 percent of small business owners believe Citizens United decision has been bad for small businesses, compared to only 9 percent who think it's good -- a margin of 7 to 1.

Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential | Common Dreams