Harry Reid Backs Constitutional Amendment To Roll Back Campaign Finance Decisions

[Faygo Kid]

Source: The Huffington Post

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is throwing his support behind a constitutional amendment to reverse recent Supreme Court rulings that have undone limitations on campaign spending, campaign contributions and independent group spending.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), the No. 3 Senate Democrat, announced in April that Democrats were planning a vote on the measure, which was introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). But the majority leader, who derides the influence of money in politics by entities like the Koch brothers each time he has a public appearance, tells BuzzFeed he plans to force multiple votes, if necessary, to pass the measure.

“(Former Supreme Court) Justice Stevens gave me the nudge that I needed and that is, ‘Let’s try and pass a constitutional amendment,’” Reid said in an interview published Wednesday. “It’s been tried before, we should continue to push this and it should become our issue. That really puts the Koch brothers up against it. We believe and I believe that there should be spending limits. We’re going to push a constitutional amendment so we can limit spending because what is going on today is awful."

The amendment would reverse the 2010 Citizens United and 2014 McCutcheon rulings, as well as part of the court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, and restore certain congressional authority to regulate the raising and spending of money, including that of super PACs. . .

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/harry-reid-campaign-finance_n_5329917.html

---

I realize this will be perceived as purely political and has no chance, but I for one am for anything that tries to put the brakes on the continuing purchase of our nation and its citizens by the plutocrats. It's out of control, and this at least continues to draw attention to it, as it's clear five justices on the Supreme Court are in their pockets.

[okaawhatever]

1. K & R Probably the most important legislation we can pass right now nt

[Maineman]

2. "You will have a republic -- if you can keep it."

Stop big money from ruling the nation. Money is not protected speech. Corporations are not persons.

I doubt the amendment goes far enough, but something is better than nothing, for now.

[Maineman]

3. The Kochs

The Koch brothers and others like them respect democracy about as much as Hitler respected Jews.

[Swede Atlanta]

4. You are correct this has no chance of getting through the Congress.........

I am so skeptical of the political landscape I really fear whether we will ever see progress again. Hopefully there are some optimists out there who can talk me off the ledge.

I really fear that even if BO isn't in office and there were another Democratic president nothing would progress. I don't see having the sufficient super-majorities in both houses to get the amendment passed in Congress.

And then there is the problem with the states with so many legislatures and governor's mansions under Republican control.

[madville]

5. No way it passes but it gets the message out there

If I could change things I would do the following:

Presidential - Any candidate polling over 20% gets say $100-200 million of public financing, no individual or corporate donations or whatever. PACs are banned from campaigning, they can donate to public financing funds.

Senate - The state legislatures have to fund the viable Senate candidates in their state from public funds, collect donations from state tax returns or something.

House - They can get donations from individuals in their district only, say $1000 per person limit.

[former9thward]

13. You clearly have never been involved in the nuts and bolts of a campaign.

Last edited Thu May 15, 2014, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

How is a House candidate going to reach 800,000 people limited to $1000 max contributions? They could not even begin to do it. It would mean that incumbents would not have to even go through the motions of campaigning. They would be automatically elected.

The major parties would love your presidential limits. It would mean no troublesome third parties.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I don't see the proposed wording for the amendment in the article,

but something like this would work:

Insofar as it relates to freedom of speech, the First Amendment to this Constitution shall not apply to speech that refers to candidates in Federal or State elections, within the six month period prior to such elections.

[GoneFishin]

7. Harry is bringing me back around. Where was this guy? Good work, Harry. nt

[JEFF9K]

8. What's the use?

Republicans will still get tens-of-billions worth of free false advertising from talk radio and Fox News!

[Fred Sanders]

9. No chance is the media narrative, but more chance than the Million Moron March, so why not get some

attention for trying a good thing for democracy?

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. I love the idea ..

Especially the multiple calls for a vote. That is a ready made campaign issue for 2014.

Most segments of the electorate, even across party lines, poll as wanting $$$ out of politics.

[freshwest]

11. +1

[WillyT]

12. K & R !!!

[myrna minx]

14. K&R /nt

[Uncle Joe]

15. Whether successful or not, the Democrats should get behind and stay behind this issue.

The harvest will come in at some point, with yields dependent on how much and how long this is sown.

Let the Republicans oppose it and they will be punished accordingly.

Thanks for the thread, Faygo Kid.

[Cha]

16. It's bueno for Harry to get this out there. Of course the kochdogs will vote against it but

see how things could change if we got more Dems in Congress in November?

Uncle Sam feels our pain..