Sanders Files Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision

[Playinghardball]

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 – Warning that “American democracy is under attack,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced a constitutional amendment to undo a Supreme Court ruling that allowed unrestricted and secret campaign spending by corporations.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – handed down five years ago today – undermined democracy by opening the floodgates on campaign funding. As a result, a record $7 billion was spent in the 2012 election cycle and $3.7 billion in the 2014 cycle.

“Five years ago today, the Supreme Court issued what I think is one of the most disastrous decisions in its history, Citizens United v. FEC, which led to the rise of super PACs and unlimited, supposedly independent, spending.”

Vermont and 15 other states along with voters and city councils in more than 600 cities and towns already have passed measures supporting a constitutional amendment. The Brennan Center for Justice recently reported that since the Citizens United decision super PACs have spent more than $1 billion and almost 60 percent of that money came from just 195 donors and their spouses.

A similar constitutional amendment was introduced by Sanders in the last session of Congress. An amendment originating in Congress must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate in order to be submitted for consideration by the states. Ratification by three-fourths of the states is required to amend the Constitution.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-files-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-supreme-courts-citizens-united-decision

[Maedhros]

1. It will be hard work, and will require much effort, but we need to do this. [n/t]

[Avalux]

2. Thank you Bernie. It's a nice gesture.

I wish there was even a small chance something like this could pass. Maybe we'll get there eventually.

[MADem]

52. It's symbolic, but it does put the attention of people on the issue.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, after all...

[AzDar]

3. Bernie Sanders: ALWAYS doing the heavy lifting for us all...

Bernie!!!

[silvershadow]

32. Oh, they will drag it out so long the public attention (what little there even is) will wane.

And then it will just fade into into the new "reality". The end.

[elleng]

4. THIS!

‘‘SECTION 1. Whereas the right to vote in public elec-
6 tions belongs only to natural persons as citizens of the
7 United States, so shall the ability to make contributions
8 and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elec-
9 tions belong only to natural persons in accordance with
10 this Article.
11 ‘‘SECTION 2.

[WillyT]

5. K & R !!!

[stage left]

6. I only have one thing to say.

I love Bernie Sanders.

[840high]

12. I don't love

politicians but do love Bernie.

[Scuba]

7. I love the ideal, but Bernie's proposed Amendment still leaves it up to Congress.

Does anyone really think that'll work?

C'mon, Constitutional Amendments are NOT baby steps. We need language that solves the problem, not language that allows (but doesn't require) Congress to solve it.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/cuamendment?inline=file

1

1 ‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be
12 construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States
13 to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral proc-
14 ess, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in pub-
15 lic elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected offi-
16 cials on the people alone by taking actions which may in-
17 clude the establishment of systems of public financing for
18 elections, the imposition of requirements to ensure the dis-
19 closure of contributions and expenditures made to influ-
20 ence the outcome of a public election by candidates, indi-
21 viduals, and associations of individuals, and the imposition
22 of content neutral limitations on all such contributions
23 and expenditures.

[Nye Bevan]

17. You want dollar limits on election-related expenditures hard-coded into the Constitution?

No, the problem for those who want restrictions on expenditures related to elections is that the Citizens United decision held that corporations, unions, and other bodies have a First Amendment right to make movies, publish books, and advertise, without restriction, whenever they want to. So what those who want to restrict such expenditures need is a Constitutional amendment that strips away this First Amendment right. It is then up to Congress to decide exactly what expenditures should be permitted.

[MFrohike]

21. Actually, they don't

Corporations are creatures of state law. Unions are creatures of federal and state law. You're imputing rights to entities that do not exist except for the allowance of the law. It's completely absurd to argue that an entity, fully regulated to the point of dissolution, somehow has rights. If a corporation somehow has fundamental rights, wouldn't that greatly limit the ability to regulate it? Further, how did it acquire those rights? Individuals are assumed to have rights as a part of natural human dignity. I'd pay real money to argue in favor of corporate rights on the basis of corporate dignity.

[Nye Bevan]

23. So the police can raid a Planned Parenthood clinic whenever they feel like it,

with no warrant, and confiscate their stuff with no compensation? Because Planned Parenthood, not being a "natural person", has no constitutional protections?

[MFrohike]

29. You had a point, then lost it

No, the police can't rob Planned Parenthood. You don't need constitutional rights to be legally protected from that.

The constitutional protections of legal fictions are necessarily circumscribed. As they are ENTIRELY creatures of law, their very existence depends upon the law that allows them to exist. It would be absurd in the extreme to extend full constitutional rights to the entities themselves, NOT the people who make them up, because it would put them on an equal footing with actual humans (natural persons, if you will). The rights that these entities possess derive from the people who make them up.

A corporation can sue and be sued because it is much easier to allow that than to require all of the owners to sue in their individual capacities. It would impair the ability of its owners to protect their property to require them to do it individually. Planned Parenthood is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures because of its board's right to associate freely and their individual right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Corporations and associations like unions can be dissolved by a simple act of a state or federal legislature, respectively. Sure, there would be a necessary period to wind them down, but there is no constitutional right to conduct business with a limit to one's liability. Given the very precariousness of their existence, completely subject to legislative whim, it seems absurd to claim they have fundamental constitutional rights in and of themselves as entities.

All that being said, there is another reason it's just dumb to argue that a legal fiction can have fundamental rights in and of itself. It just takes paperwork and a fee to start a corporation in any state. Why should someone be able to pick up a second set of rights for $500 and a few hours of paperwork? That's essentially the result of your argument. You'd have your rights as an individual and then you could have more rights from your corporation. As I keep saying, that's absurd.

[Nye Bevan]

31. In one sentence you spoke of the "right to associate freely",

and in the next sentence you maintained that Congress had the right to dissolve unions. That is utterly absurd, as banning unions would clearly violate freedom of association.

You also stated that Planned Parenthood enjoys Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure even though it is not a "natural person" because its board members are natural persons. So in this case why should it not also enjoy First Amendment rights to free speech?

[MFrohike]

33. Not so much

You have the right to associate freely. You don't have the right to preferential tax and liability treatment in the exercise of that right.

Their 4th amendment rights are extended to the entity because they would enjoy it in their individual capacities. Remember the bit about corporations being able to sue and be sued? It's the same thing. Rather than force them into an inconvenience that would affect their ability to protect their rights, they are allowed to assert their rights as one body. Can the same be said for speech? Is the inconvenience of having to speak as an individual prejudicial to their exercise of that speech? Would it really inhibit their ability to speak? It might inhibit their ability to be heard, but them's the breaks. The first amendment guarantees a right to speech, not a right to be heard.

[Nye Bevan]

34. You're arguing that when individuals, who would be powerless on their own, join a union,

the union has no free speech right to speak on behalf of those individuals with a common interest. The right of individuals to band together, pool their resources, and make their voice heard collectively, so that they can compete with the likes of the Kochs in having a voice, is what was affirmed in the Citizens United decision.

[MFrohike]

35. Again, no

In an earlier post, I noted that non-human entities, also referred to as legal fictions, have circumscribed rights, not no rights. I never questioned their ability to represent their members. I never questioned their ability to speak out on national issues, nor their ability to spend money to try to influence our politics. I've only pointed out that the right of the union, or corporation, to do that derives from the rights of its members. Derives is the key word. It is not the same right as its members. It can be limited (so can the members' speech, but only very narrowly).

Citizens United affirmed the right to undermine a government's legitimacy. Campaign contributions are widely seen as little more than legalized bribes. You have argued for the individual's right to free speech. How do you balance that against the country's right to an uncorrupted, or minimally corrupted, government? Is that right not part of the constitution, implicitly to be sure, as well?

[Nye Bevan]

36. The Citizens United decision did not even concern "campaign contributions".

Corporate campaign contributions are illegal and this was not affected by the Citizens United decision. As far as independent expenditures go, whether a union, a nonprofit, an association of concerned citizens, or a corporation wants to send out a pamphlet, publish a book, take out a newspaper ad, or advertise on a billboard, both I and the ACLU believe that these rights are protected by the First Amendment, irrespective of whether the pamphlet, book, etc. is intended to influence the way people vote in an election. That is why the ACLU filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United case, which affirmed that these rights are protected by the First Amendment, and why they oppose the various constitutional amendments that have been suggested to "fix" the decision.

[MFrohike]

37. Fair point

Contributions is my go to when discussing money in politics. Mea culpa for typing it without thinking.

I know you agree with the ACLU. Great. I find their position to be dishonest and self-serving. I've read their arguments against constitutional amendments in this case and they are wrong where they aren't dishonest. They trot out a parade of horribles, like billionaires buying up news outlets, while ignoring the fact it's already happening. They've argued that an amendment, like the Udall one, will allow the courts to monkey around with free speech. That's particularly rich, given that they're busy defending exactly such a case. Points for audacity, ACLU.

So, it's cool to be a first amendment fundamentalist and all, but how do you balance the supposed right of non-human entities to spend at will to influence government with the right of the population to have a government that is neither corrupt in appearance nor in fact? Or do you feel that the right to corrupt outweighs the right to a responsive government without having to bribe?* I guess I want to know if you feel that the right to pay other people to speak for you is more important than the necessity of having a government that at least appears legitimate.

*Whether contributing directly or spending on a candidate's behalf, the primary reason is to influence the candidate. Given the definite benefits that accrue to a candidate in this position, it's accurate to describe it as bribery. It's trading money for influence.

[Nye Bevan]

39. I am open to enhanced disclosure rules.

And I certainly prefer the enhanced disclosure route to the book-banning route.

One thing about these so-called "fixes" that have been proposed is that they are so ridiculously overbroad that even their sponsors must know that they have no chance whatsoever of going anywhere. Since they know full well that there is zero chance of even getting the required votes in Congress, or being ratified even by a single state, let alone the required 38, they don't really care about the wording and any broader implications, and are really only pushing these "fixes" to get publicity and raise funds.

[MFrohike]

40. If you like

The issue is not who's buying the government, but that it's being bought. Disclosure rules won't address that at all. The issue of legitimacy is about whether the government is seen as a government of the people, rather than a government of the rich. I don't see how enhancing disclosure is going to change the underlying reality of the situation.

As for what's possible, you never know until you try. There's more than a few examples in our history of legislation that's failed quite a few times and finally was passed. Hawaiian statehood, the civil rights bills, and the TVA come to mind. The fact that the votes don't exist now doesn't mean they won't exist in 5 or 10 years. It's shortsighted to dismiss an idea for a lack of support when it's still in its infancy.

[dreamnightwind]

53. +1

Disclosure is not enough, it's what we're supposed to fight for as the pragmatic solution but it doesn't solve the problem, which is that our government represents the interests of the people/organizations who are wealthy enough to finance campaigns, rather than the interests of those who most need government's support, the poor.

[skepticscott]

71. Sorry, that's ridiculous

The primary reason is to influence voters, not the candidate. From the standpoint of a corporation running an ad in favor of a candidate, it is of zero benefit to them to be on the good side of that candidate unless they've influenced enough voters to get them elected.

[MFrohike]

74. And?

The money is the how, not the why. You're arguing that someone or something donates money to or on behalf of a candidate for the sake of donating it. Seriously, that's the argument you made. You just said money is given to get votes, not to get favorable policy. You've just elevated campaign contributions to disinterested giving. Bravo.

[skepticscott]

75. Um, no..that's not my argument

You might try understanding even a little of what I said before you try to respond to me and tell me what I said. I said nothing about donating money, and CU is not about donating money (as you were forced to acknowledge when confronted with the simple facts). You just made that up out of pure intellectual dishonesty. I said that the primary reason for running an ad in support of a candidate is to influence voters, not the candidate. Obviously. If you don't influence enough voters, having the candidate be happy with you doesn't mean jack shit, since they won't be in a position to do anything about it.

[MFrohike]

77. raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage

Calm down. The internet is not that serious. For that matter, neither is the point you're making. See, I get your point about the candidate actually needing to get into office to make the decision to support that candidate* worthwhile. I just don't get why you're harping on it. It's a given. It's irrelevant to a discussion of the corrupting influence of money in politics. Nobody cares about the few who money didn't buy a seat, it's the other 100 that did get bought a seat that concerns us.

If you want to get worked up over my pointing out exactly why people donate money to the groups that Citizens United empowered to spend at will on behalf of candidates, be my guest. I don't think it helps your cause, but hey, that's your call. If you want to continually harp on the possibility somebody might not get elected in an environment where over 95% of incumbents are re-elected and the strong correlation of money spent to electoral prospects exists, have at it. It's your choice.

By the way, my previous post was pretty much tongue-in-cheek. I got a little carried away, I admit. I just couldn't understand why you kept harping on such an irrelevant point. After all, if money wasn't extremely useful in getting people elected, why would we ever discuss campaign finance?

[skepticscott]

80. It's pretty clear that you have no legitimate argument

And that your posts are just a muddle of deflections, red herrings, misrepresentations and general intellectual dishonesty. But continue on that way if it pleases you.

[MFrohike]

81. Cool

Your reply sounds like something off that old random essay generator. Was that intentional or just a happy coincidence?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. "You don't have the right to preferential tax and liability treatment in the exercise of that right.

That's is the work of Congress, not the entity.

However, Congress has the ability to tax-unto-destruction -- unless constitutionally restrained because said tax would ruin an inherent freedom, i.e. a tax on printer's ink.

[MFrohike]

90. Not exactly

Congress, the state legislatures, and the various federal agencies (IRS) created the forms and their workings. The judiciary has decided that those forms should arbitrarily be extended the full force of constitutional protection.

[rogerashton]

54. and by the way,

The constitution restricts to the federal government the power to "make laws in respect of bankruptcy," which leads me to think that state corporation chartering laws are unconstitutional. I seem to be the only one who thinks so, but -- aren't state corporation chartering laws, granting limited liability, "laws in respect of bankruptcy?"

[MFrohike]

62. Not exactly

The constitution grants, not restricts, the power to govern bankruptcy to Congress. Congress has extended some of that power to the states. It's done the same with other areas. The states are free to make law in that area, provided it's within the boundaries set by Congress.

[rogerashton]

63. You are mistaken

The purpose mentioned in the constitution is to have uniform laws, and allowing the states to make the laws means no uniformity -- a race to the bottom. Which we have, in corporation chartering.

[MFrohike]

66. Not so much

Look up the homestead exemption. That's the prime example of the power granted to the states by Congress in the field of bankruptcy.

[skepticscott]

70. Nonsense

Are you saying that corporations don't and shouldn't enjoy the right of freedom of the press? Or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Or the right to freely contract? None of that is anything but laughable.

And here's the even more nonsensical aspect of your argument. The First Amedment doesn't GRANT the right of freedom of speech to individuals explicitly. It prohibits Congress from RESTRICTING that right, and places no qualifications whatsoever on who it is being exercised by. And it certainly doesn't say that Congress can't restrict political speech unless one party is doing a more effective job than the other at getting their message, and THEN it must step in and level the playing field.

[MFrohike]

73. I really don't think you understood what I said

Whatever rights non-human entities have are derived from their human members (ownership, board, etc.). The reason a corporation can appear as itself in court is because it's less of a burden on the human who make it up. That's the same reason they can exercise other rights. It's not something intrinsic to the non-human entity. In essence, the rights they can exercise are derived from the humans who actually possess those rights.

It seems like you want to link constitutional rights for non-human entities, i.e. legal fictions, to the natural rights theory. That's, uh, quite a stretch. The essence of the natural rights theory is that constitution guarantees pre-existing rights. We'll leave aside the absurdity of a guarantee for a pre-existing right because it wouldn't help the discussion. I don't get how you get past the problem that legal fictions require a legal regime to exist. These fictions exist because the law allows them to exist. If their entire existence is dependent upon the legal regime that made them possible, then how do they have a pre-existing claim to any rights at all?

Ultimately, no, I don't think non-human entities have rights independent of the humans who comprise them. I think it's just a silly claim. I think whoever makes such an argument is badly misguided. I also think anyone who makes such an argument is simply ignorant of how law actually works in America. This idea of a legal fiction having independent rights enshrines arrangements that are conducive to conducting business into a principle of stupidity. Honestly, you incorporate in some fashion to gain limited liability, preferential tax treatment, or both. You don't do it because of free association. It's simply ignorant to claim otherwise.

As for unions, which I haven't mentioned until now, they have a similar ability to corporations to exercise rights. This was explicitly done to make it more convenient for their members to exercise their rights collectively. Do not confuse that for some grand principle derived from the constitution because that is not true at all. You can't understand the rights labor possesses when organized unless you actually know the legal means that were used against labor prior to the 1930s. The forms that exist have been chosen for either practical or political reasons and sometimes both.

Your first amendment argument is bizarre. Not the analysis of restriction vs. grant, which not something I ever mentioned, but the application to a non-human entity. If the essentials of the Bill of Rights apply to a legal fiction, what about the right to vote? The right to bear arms? What about the latent Equal Protection problem with such an approach? If you don't understand what I mean, consider limited liability and preferential tax treatment. If we are to actually have corporate citizens, how can they possess rights denied to natural born persons, whose existence is not entirely dependent upon law? Further, what of the laws that enable such entities? Are they now enshrined permanently? Are they now completely immune from revision or even repeal? Would an attempt to repeal the law allowing the corporate form by a state legislature necessarily be required to provide due process? How would you reconcile the need to provide due process with separation of powers? After all, the states tend to follow the federal model when it comes to the form of the government.

You may think these questions are absurd, but, if you do, you're naive in the extreme. Extend constitutional protections to non-human entities in themselves, not through their humans, and you will see thousands of lawsuits asking just those questions. So, unless you have answers to those questions, and the rest that will derive from them, then maybe the argument that a corporation possesses the same constitutional rights as a natural person isn't a good argument to make.

[skepticscott]

82. As noted above, you clearly have nothing rational or legitimate to offer

in the way of argument, so you've resorted to a mishmash of red herrings and misstatements of other people's positions in place of intellectual honesty. I never said that "the essentials of the Bill of Rights apply to a legal fiction", now did I? Or argued that "a corporation possesses the same constitutional rights as a natural person". I've said that corporations share SOME of the same constitutional rights as individuals, and now note that you lamely dodged addressing the real examples of when they should and do, in favor of silly examples that neither I nor anyone else is proposing.

And who ever said that corporations "have rights independent of the humans who comprise them"? Not me. Talk about irrelevant points. And silly. Again, the obsession with deliberately making false statements about what other people have said and argued is a hallmark of a failed argument intellectual bankruptcy.

[MFrohike]

91. Oh please

You made sweeping statements and got called out on it. If you have an actual rationale for your views, instead of just repeating "intellectual dishonesty" over and over again like a mantra, lay it out. Otherwise, let it go and accept that you lost.

[skepticscott]

97. I note that you are still unable to address ANY

of the examples and substantial points I raised, and are still resorting to lame hand-waving.

Fail.

[MFrohike]

98. Goosfraba

Cool, man. You made all these awesome points and totally didn't move the goalposts or falsely claim that you'd said something when even a lazy rereading of your early posts would show you didn't. You totally demolished my arguments through reason and logic, not by refusing to address them when it became inconvenient. I stand in awe of your ability and will be suggesting you for the Gold Medal (TM) of internet arguing. Bravo!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. I think we're half-way there.

Yes, by-law-only entities have rights but those rights only derive from the inherent rights of the persons comprising those "legal fictions."

But the real question then becomes: Why do we have legal fictions?

I believe the answer is: Because we need them (within the system we find ourselves).

Legal fictions exist so people can commit a portion of their material wealth to an endeavor and, if the endeavor proves to have been a poor decision only the portion of the wealth committed -- rather than the sum total of their assets -- shall be at risk. Would you join a group if, as an understanding of your membership within that group, your home/savings/possessions were liable for the actions of that group?

As an analogy of the consequence of such protections I offer Good Samaritan laws, or meaningful lack thereof, as an example. We've all heard stories of people acting to the best of their ability with the best of intentions to mitigate some emergency only to be left in ruins by poorly formed law. Those stories have been all but universally condemned as wrong-headed yet they persist. Moreover, they persist in the collective consciousness of the public and because of that the public is all the more reluctant to offer assistance to their neighbors because they fear having their lives destroyed. Ours is a poorer society because of such episodes.

Your ability to join a group and not personally suffer any more than you personally care to commit is essential in granting you the freedom to express yourself as part of that group. I wholeheartedly endorse granting you those protections because your participation is essential in our building a stronger society.

[MFrohike]

92. Ok?

I wasn't questioning the value that such forms provide, only the granting of rights to them that go beyond the traditional model. My problem is that these entities are being elevated above actual people, not that they exist.

[Scuba]

22. No, I want publicly funded elections. Lawrence Lessig proposed something along the lines ...

... of giving every eligibile voter a voucher for, say, $50. You can give your voucher to one candidate, split it, pool it with others or burn it, your choice ... but that's all you can spend on electioneering!

That way every voter has exactly the same amount of speech as every other voter.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. You want to spend $7B+ federal dollars on elections?

Every two years, or only Presidential years? $50/race or $50 total? House and Senate or just Presidential?

[Scuba]

26. The $50 is a placeholder, although as I recall it equals about as much dough as was spent in 2012.

[Nye Bevan]

27. So if I decide to spend $200 on a billboard that says "I hate Ted Cruz" I get arrested? (nt)

[sabrina 1]

41. Corporations are not people, period. That will go down in history as one of the stupidest claims

ever made. And it is a testament to how far gone, how psychopathic those in charge of this country have become that it wasn't laughed our of the SC.

All Bernie wants, as do millions of others, is that we return to some kind of sanity and stop these morons from trying to push the FANTASY on intelligent human beings, that Corporations are actually PEOPLE. They are liars.

As Elizabeth Warren said: 'People have hearts, they have children, parents, jobs' etc.

Anyone who is buying this egregious made up deception is AS crazy as those who invented it.

That decision was a symptom of how sick this country has become. And it needs to be overturned.

No one is trying to restrict speech, except the morons who invented this imaginary 'personhood' of an entity. THEY are the ones restricting speech.

[Nye Bevan]

42. I thought one of the stupidest claims was the government claiming it should be able to ban books,

as it did during the "Citizens United" arguments:

According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."

http://citizensunited.org/press-releases.aspx?article=430#sthash.u2shz7wC.dpuf

Do you think that it should be possible to ban the publication of books that mention election candidates? Do you think that the ACLU is "crazy" and "sick" for supporting the Citizens United decision? A decision that protects the right of unions to run ads pointing out that (for example) a Republican candidate opposes raising the minimum wage?

[sabrina 1]

43. The only reason the ACLU is supporting the decision is because they believed it could be used

by smaller organizations, such as theirs. That doesn't seem to have worked. So I don't agree with them on this.

As for that argument about banning books, that isn't likely to happen. The 1st Amendment would cover that. And if opponents didn't like it, or if it was found to be untrue, there is the option, which was used when a film about Kerry which was filled with propaganda and inaccuracies, was scheduled to be aired to try to influence the election. People organized, threatened to boycott the advertisers, who pulled their ads and the company's stocks began to fall. The movie was not aired as a result.

Corporations are not people, period. The decision is based on a lie.

[Nye Bevan]

44. No, that is false. Here is the link to where the ACLU explains its support of Citizens United:

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

and there is nothing there about "smaller organizations".

And yes, right now the First Amendment does make book-banning unconstitutional; however, the various amendments that have been proposed to "fix" Citizens United would result in this no longer being the case (except for self-published books by wealthy individuals, which would not be affected).

[sabrina 1]

45. It doesn't need to be fixed, it needs to be overturned because it is based on a lie. A fairy tale,

or horror story. It's more like a story you would make up to scare kids with.

I already said, I think the ACLU is wrong about this. It happens, people make mistakes, and yes they did state when questioned, that the decision would benefit smaller organizations also.

It also restricts the speech of ordinary voters. And that was the intent. Voters cannot compete with the vast amounts of money these Corporate Monsters are capable of pouring into candidates who do NOT represent the people, they are THEIR employees.

I cannot imagine how anyone in their right mind could possibly view this as anything BUT a deception perpetrated on the people in order to prevent them from being represented as they have a right to expect.

Hiring your own Congress members to do your bidding, is not what happens in a Democracy.

And we've seen the results and it will only get worse which is their goal.

[Nye Bevan]

46. Ordinary voters can make their voices heard by banding together

and pooling their resources. For example, they can join a union which can afford to run ads slamming Republicans for refusing to raise the minimum wage. And the Citizens United decision constitutionally protects the union's right to do this.

[Enthusiast]

49. Do you see yourself as a Citizens United defender zealot?

Is this your primary cause?

[Nye Bevan]

50. It's probably the issue where I differ the most from the DU "conventional wisdom".

Also, the issue where what I believe to be the most utter nonsense is spouted by posters here. "Citizens United said corporations are people!" Guess what, it didn't.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. Sometimes "Conventional" goes one way and "Wisdom" goes the other.

Your $200 billboard announcing your disdain for Ted Cruz proved so salient as to remain unanswered in favor of by-passing it for the purpose howling the same old "conventional wisdom."

What the howlers forget is: Any law that speaks to their favor will be a law employed to their destruction. I can't help but think they want these laws under the assumption they will be the only ones enforcing them. They will not.

We complain about the corrupt and malicious but neglect to acknowledge they are a constant of the human condition. Even if we have nothing but an unending series of Democratic politicians elected to office they will soon learn that the corrupt and malicious will assume the mantle of big-D Democrats even though their hearts are anti-little-D democratic. The corporatists didn't gravitate to the Republicans because they prefer words that begin with "R;" they went because that is where the power is to be found. They will change flags as soon as it becomes expedient to do so. If they cannot have the McMansion of the corporatist they will seek out the dacha of the commissar. And as soon as the corrupt and malicious are realized for what they are the real big and little-D democrats will not be allowed to campaign against them because they gave the corrupt and malicious the power to crush free speech.

[skepticscott]

72. Who had made that statement?

Link us to the passage in Citizens United where the SC said "corporations are people". I think we both know you can't.

The (far more) accurate statement of settled case law is that corporations are entitled to some of the same legal rights and protections as individuals. That shouldn't be remotely controversial, unless you want to argue, among other things, that the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press does not apply to, say, the New York Times, since it's a corporation.

[woo me with science]

8. Bernie Sanders. A statesman and representative of the people

in a sea of corrupt corporate sellouts.

[840high]

13. Truth.

[Enthusiast]

48. +1! "in a sea of corrupt corporate sellouts"

[Zorra]

79. Yep. [phone] nt

[zeemike]

9. K&R...

[MissDeeds]

10. Love you, Bernie!!!

Thanks for always having our backs.

K&R

[Nye Bevan]

11. This amendment would allow the publication of books to be banned,

if they mentioned candidates in upcoming elections.

This would be a breathtaking circumscription of the First Amendment.

[Duval]

16. Say What?? nt

[LiberalAndProud]

14. This could happen.

I know of a small group in my area who is organizing to help pass just such an amendment. It seems to me that it is possible to make this happen with a lot of hard work.

[Duval]

15. It's high time we try

something to do away with this! Thanks, Playinghardball. This is good news and even if it doesn't pass the Republican controlled Congress, it is out there!

[Jefferson23]

18. +1 A fighter. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. No, the exact opposite.

The politicians who deserve the epithet "fighters", if any do, are the ones who work hard to get laws passed, even if that means making unpleasant compromises.

This is a wholly empty gesture - it's designed to make Sanders look & feel good, not to actually accomplish anything. It has no chance of passing, and Sanders knows it has no chance of passing.

[Jefferson23]

89. The objective is to get the attention of the public to have that conversation. One that

is sorely lacking within the MSM. I am surprised you do not appreciate that about him.
One can fight in politics on many levels..that you find him insincere, if that is what
you meant..I do not agree, not at all.

[yodermon]

19. ..thus ending DU. n/t

[KittyWampus]

20. WHOOP! There it is.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. Nice gesture

that will never pass the House and Senate. And if it did, it is highly unlikely it would ever be ratified.

[wyldwolf]

28. A quixotic move against a 5 year old law. Yup! A stunt to thrill the true believers...

... as we approach an election cycle.

[Kilgore]

30. Bravo

Very well put!

[Vattel]

38. I can think of a lot of amendments I would want more than this one.

But at least Sanders is trying to address the problems created by Citizens United in the appropriate way.

[Enthusiast]

47. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[MADem]

51. I wish him luck, and I hope he succeeds.

If money is speech, then the poor are muzzled. It's an anti-democratic (with a small d) ruling, it's wrong, it will eventually go down in history as one of the biggest Supreme mistakes EVER, and we'd do well to jettison the thing now.

I know it is a long shot, but simply by taking this step, old Bernie has started a ball rolling. He's secured his place in history because people will look back and remember that he took the first step on a long journey. Eventually, that unjust law will fall.

[benld74]

55. Bernie gets it!!!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. Now watch some Republican propose an amendment to repeal "Obamacare".

[Nye Bevan]

58. Why would they need a constitutional amendment for that?

Once they have a veto-proof majority in the House and the Senate, that's all they need.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. I meant an amendment to the bill.

[NCTraveler]

57. Neither party came back with new language that was voted on that I am aware of.

Both parties support the Citizens United decision. I don't care what they say at this point. The SC and many scholars schooled congress on the necessary language to strengthen this area of campaign finance reform. Congress isn't/wasn't interested. Dems aren't interested. Repubs aren't interested. Bernie, put the Constitutional Amendment back in your drawer. Write legislation, as was recommended in 2010 by many, that will pass the muster of the current SC. To this day Democrats are using the Citizens United decision as a fund raising tool. No shit. They are using it to raise funds for their campaigns and then doing nothing about it after they win their election. That should really tell you something.

[Nye Bevan]

60. The so-called "fixes" that have been proposed as constitutional amendments are so ridiculous,

as in ridiculously overbroad, that they are obviously not intended as serious proposals. And I am sure that people like Sanders fully realize this, which is why he is not worried about the broader implications of such an amendment. As you say, these proposals are more fundraising tools than serious suggestions.

[JDPriestly]

61. K&R.

[lovemydog]

64. Thank you Senator Sanders.

This deserves a vote in Congress so we see where they stand.

On a local level, support measures to overturn Citizens United. It's currently 600 cities & towns, and growing.

[spanone]

65. go Bernie!!!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[blkmusclmachine]

67. Good.

[JonLP24]

68. Can any Citizens United decision expert explain why it set such a wide ranging precedent?

I know the specifics of the actual case very well -- a group of people objected to the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie, despite the political message, it was written, produced, and directed consistent with the standards of other high grossing Hollywood films though I could understand their objection since Michael Moore kept pushing the release & showing dates closer to the election. He wanted the film to influence the outcome.

So this same group decided to make a Hillary movie which I never saw and I'm sure nobody else ever saw, plus they ended up wrong in their prediction anyways. I think judges & appeals court said it wasn't art like the MM film but more of 90 minute campaign ad. Now, this may be controversial but I would have supported reversing the earlier judgments because I think something like art to campaign ad presented as a movie is way too subjective and I understood their argument & the reason why they went into making such a stupid movie to challenge a certain rule in a way to highlight the problem. The 2008 election was the most expensive in history at-the-time, before Citizens United but I agree, now the floodgates are open. Why couldn't they just let them keep their stupid movie & stay within the whole movie-campaign ad rule. Why open the floodgates when it comes to contributions?

[PoliticAverse]

76. This extensive article in The New Yorker magazine explains...

how an (originally) narrow decision became a far-reaching one:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited

[Nye Bevan]

95. The government argued during the case that it also had the power to ban books.

It has been suggested that this was the point where a majority of the justices decided a broad decision was needed.

[Initech]

69. Run Bernie Run!!!!

The one candidate we have that could actually destroy the GOP clown car!

[former9thward]

78. Did Harry Reid allow a vote on this?

If not, why not?

[mythology]

93. One reason would be that Harry Reid is now the minority leader of the Senate

Another is this amendment is overly broad and has absolutely zero chance at being passed.

[former9thward]

94. That would not be the reason.

It was introduced in the last session of Congress as the OP states.

[woo me with science]

83. kick

[ChosenUnWisely]

87. Any Democrat who does not sign on to this bill needs to be bounced from office

No excuses and no exceptions.

[Jefferson23]

96. There's Never Been a Better Time to Be a Corporation

February 1, 2015

With the most politically active corporations reaping $760 for every $1 they donate to influence politics, these donors are well positioned to give 10 times the amount they were previously allowed to national parties, virtually dissolving McCain-Feingold campaign finance law gains.

in full:http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28832-there-s-never-been-a-better-time-to-be-a-corporation

[Jefferson23]

99. 40 charts that explain money in politics

Money suffuses our political system. Candidates must spend huge sums to get elected, and once they do, well-funded interests spend huge sums to influence how they vote. Campaign finance laws are being struck down, and money is rushing into outside groups that don’t have to disclose their donors. Some studies have found companies can get as much as a 22,000 percent return on their lobbying dollars, while a recent poll from the Global Strategy Group found that more than 90 percent of Americans wants to reduce the role of money in politics. Here’s what’s going on — in charts, of course.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5949581/money-in-politics-charts-explain