Obama favors constitutional amendment on Citizens United:
Perhaps the most important news in Obama campaign manager Jim Messinas announcement about Super PACs is this:
The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action by constitutional amendment, if necessary to place reasonable limits on all such spending.
As I reported here recently, this is the step that campaign finance advocates had hoped Obama would support. The question is how forcefully the President will now push for it, if at all.
Theres an argument to be made that a strong case for it would dovetail neatly with the Obama campaign strategy of painting Mitt Romney who favors doing away with all limits on campaign contributions as emblematic of all the ways the current system is rigged for the rich and corporations and against average Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-dems-will-play-by-gop-rules/2012/02/07/gIQAeGCHwQ_blog.html
I support a constitutional amendment too. If you do too, please recommend this thread.
BumRushDaShow
(129,055 posts)although I know those who be impacted would buy off every politician in Congress and in the state legislatures so that it would never pass.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Hope BHO will battle for an amendment once he's safely back in for a second term.
SG
edit: typo
TfG
(61 posts)reelected to a 2nd term. That way, his actions would reflect his words and it would be more than just a campaign pledge that gets forgotten after the election.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)As everyone will be reminded every day about the consequences of this decision. However, from what it sounds like, the amendment doesn't go far enough. We need to outlaw the idea that speech=money. I could not care less if I know who is buying the ads.
Furthermore, if he really wanted to be progressive, the amendment would outlaw corporate 'personhood'. I just can't imaging that happening.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Indeed.
And it should be easy! since the corporate=person thing was a mistake from the get go. A clerical error (tho' suspiciously done intentionally). A reading of the entire decisions from 1819 & 1886 makes it clear that this corporate personhood is severely limited. Only an OPINION in the headnote, not part of the decision, muddles the issue.
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)So now we need to get Senator Sanders, and a few other CongressCritters--including some people on MSNBC to start making noise about this. Then hopefully it will gain steam in the public domain. Someone get BigEddie on the phone!!!!!
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)You could never manage to get the required super-majority through Congress, let alone get enough state legislatures to ratify it. It's a non-starter. The only realistic way Citizens United gets undone is with another Supreme Court ruling.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)barbtries
(28,798 posts)most americans realize that was one really bad decision, and that the process is hopelessly corrupted by money.
Stuart G
(38,428 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)It needs to be passed by both houses of Congress, Then a majority of states will need to ratify it through their legislatures. I don't see how it's going to pass enough states, let alone Congress, to become law any time soon.
The Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1923 and didn't pass both the House and Senate until 1972, after which it was sent to the states for ratification votes. The ERA didn't get enough state ratifications before a 1982 deadline, and expired.
We need action on this MUCH sooner.
lastlib
(23,239 posts)Get them on record as to whether they support an amendment, vote 'em in or out accordingly.
Do the same to the Congressvarmints. If theydon't support this, out they go!
Myrina
(12,296 posts)In other words ... "Sure, getting hold of CU-type spending orgies is a good idea, but not in my lifetime."
bowens43
(16,064 posts)certainly won't see it anytime soon.
It would be easier to impeach the activist judges who were n the majority on this issue. (this would be nearly impossible too)
SnowCritter
(810 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)Does this mean the GOP Super Pacs are OK? Or only OK if they are for an amendment? If the Democratic Party uses Super Pacs too why all the uproar? This makes no sense.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)It would put an end to "Super PACs" and make corporate contributions unconstitutional.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I think the SuperPACs, no matter who they fund, are abominations. It all comes down to which interests are the best-funded, and the most able to buy electoral results. Our current system is very sick and very wrong.
I can see why the Obama people reversed themselves on PAC money, even though it makes me very uncomfortable. They saw themselves taking a water pistol to a gunfight with Republicans & freaked out.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)We have been studying things like fallacies in class. It is amazing to watch these political parties and then see the fallacy. We are also taking Critical Thinking.
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)Thanks for the thread, Mosaic.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I hope it is more than just Election year "tell them what they want to hear" bullshit.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Obama3_16
(157 posts)I think this automatic weapon should be outlawed. But until then, Republicans...RATATATAT!!
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Two branches of government that are elected by the people make a law and one branch, not elected by the people, can nullify it with the only recourse to change the Constitution.
I can not imagine in this day and age, with unlimited money to fight the change, that this amendment has much of a chance. But I will give it all my support.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)That would really be something to cheer about.