don't have to vote GOP. If you think there is too much money in politics, you can vote against it.This is your election."

They are extremely difficult to orchestrate and I believe they are prone to tons of proposed riders.

The full text of amendments are short and only deal with that specific subject. There's no way they will be full of pork or have something about gay marriage or anything like that!

they have been heavily modified (not counting the Bill of Rights). At least that's what I thought I heard (I'm certainly not an expert).

The states will still have to ratify. How long will that take?

Hope I am wrong.

And absent the court issuing a reversing decision it's the only way to make the
previous decision moot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Can it not be overturned?

The numbers are not their for a constitutional amendment. Even looking at Nov 2016 elections in the most optimistic goggles available there numbers are still short.

Get the Scalia seat filled with another Ginsburg/Breyer/Kegan/Sotomayor type, and review, or challenge again and viola.. It's gone.

Much easier route, and much more likely scenario.

The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur. With a Dem appointed majority on the SCOTUS and a well thought out challenge to Citizens United, it could hit the SCOTUS in a couple of years. The challenge could be initiated pretty much anywhere in the country. All that would be needed is a complaint that the person filing the challenge has been harmed by the previous decision. Hell, pretty much anybody could make that claim.

This could happen rather quickly and most certainly a hell of a lot quicker than a Constitutional Amendment.

instead of an amendment. But, props for the effort, Ms. Clinton.

I know this is just campaign season red meat, and unlikely to happen but I'm glad she's at least throwing the right stuff out there. It means she's recognizing who she needs to be courting, and it's definitely not the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

More of this, definitely.

She knows it, so it's an empty promise.

They're too addicted to the money.

Then Citizens United is dead anyway. But some so called progressives are too blind to see it.

The amendment process takes many years, and the President does not control it.

except tick the "I oppose Citizens United" box. Of course, since I (along with the ACLU) support the Citizens United decision, I see that as a feature, not a bug.

that she wants this decision gone is no surprise to me at all. After all, the decision which made corporations "people" and allowed that kind of money INTO politics was about her to begin with.