Nader's Public Citizen calls for amendment to overturn Citizens United. Where's Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pearl-korn/citizens-united-an-assaul_b_772482.html

Citizens United, an Assault on Our Democracy, Needs a Constitutional Amendment
October 22, 2010

Ever since the Supreme Court handed over to corporations the right to anonymously pump unlimited amounts of money into influencing elections, we no longer know who is behind those nasty attack ads flooding the airways these days.

Shadowy corporate front groups using patriotic sounding names like Karl Rove's and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's "American Crossroads" and the billionaire Koch Brothers' "Americans For Prosperity," along with dozens of others like them, are funneling hundreds of millions of dollars from unidentified donors into ads against candidates and elected officials who could throw a monkey wrench into their extremist agenda.

Leading the progressive counterattack nationally is Public Citizen, which was created by Ralph Nader some forty years ago and is still watching our backs and best interests, oftentimes taking issues right up to the Supreme Court -- and winning. Hundreds of thousands of supporters are now on board for a Constitutional Amendment to take back our democracy, including a petition out there now to Senators to step up to the plate against the Citizens United ruling, which threw the keys to our government over to those secret special interest donors. Public Citizen reports that only 10% of groups running ads in the primaries in favor of Republicans have revealed their donors, while 50% of Democrats' supporters have. In 2004, disclosure was at 100%.

The FEC, meanwhile, has been moribund, unwilling to enforce the law or even clarify its own regulations, according to Public Citizen, who added: "Republican members of the FEC have interpreted the disclosure law into oblivion and have deadlocked the agency against taking any further action."

As a result, so long as these special interest groups do not do anything formally attached to a candidate's campaign, anything goes, with no spending limits and disclosure requirements ignored by a feckless FEC . And because of the Supreme Court decision, no longer is there a difference between a live human being and a corporate entity with regard to political spending, allowing corporations to throw their money into influencing elections without limits. Personhood granted to corporations closed the gap between them and the influence of ordinary citizens and the small-donor, people power that swept the Republicans out in '06 and '08. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows corporations are not people, yet this concept appears to have eluded the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

more...

with Nader's name on it.

This is an important initiative, and I hope DUers will get behind it.

"In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. This structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions. The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term."

http://www.fec.gov/about.shtml

The President should appoint 3 Democrats, 1 Republican and 2 Green Party (or other third party) members. And the Republican chosen should be a liberal Republican, not a knuckle dragger.

That would just *fly* through confirmation.

Use the bully pulpit to shine a national spotlight on this issue.
Go to The People.
MAKE the Republicans STAND UP and publicly support this bullshit,
then hang it around their necks.

Way past time to FIGHT.




"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

:shrug:

Presidents who don't accept the deal on the table don't get any deal, they can't dissolve Congress, the bully pulpit is basically useless in persuading Congress or the public, and the political environment is generally shaped by the unemployment rate (not policy).

But your make-pretend super-President allows you to continue to peddle your narrative, so I doubt you are open to reason or facts.

But your make-pretend fantasy allows you to peddle your narrative, so I doubt you are open to reason or facts.

Gee.
This is easy.
No debate necessary.
Just attack the messenger.
I should have tried this approach a long time ago.
:)

Then push through a massive batch of appointees. There are dozens of posts that remain unfilled because Obama is frightened of the confirmation process. Grow a pair, dear Mr. President, and adopt that old Bush policy (since you love so many of his old policies anyway). When congress pushes the President he should push back TWICE AS HARD.

Pres. Obama, please try to make them give you the nickname "Give 'em hell Barry," rather than "the prime compromiser."

Congresswoman Donna Edwards Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Undo SCOTUS Ruling

http://freespeechforpeople.org/edwardsvideo

nt

as allowing the CoC to use foreign money, I'd say absolutely yes he's supporting it.

Add to that he brought it up in a not so nice way in the last SOTU and Alito made an ass of himself that night, and subsequently has said he won't be at the next SOTU...........

No doubt about it, the President wants it gone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/obama-weekly-address-vide_n_434082.html
""This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't."

Obama said that means public servants who stand up to Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers and other powerful interests could find themselves under attack when election time rolls around.

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.""

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/obama-calls-citizens-united-ru.html

"President Obama on Saturday urged Congress to pass legislation to deal with contributions from special interests and lobbyists in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned bans on corporate giving.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama decried the court decision known as "Citizens United," saying that it amounts to "a huge blow to our efforts to rein in this undue influence."

"In short, this decision gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money -- literally millions of dollars -- to affect elections throughout our country," Obama says. "This, in turn, will multiply their influence over decision-making in our government."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/obamas-focus-on-election-_n_770523.html

"Obama's Focus On Election Funding Spurs Guarded Optimism Among Campaign Finance Reformers"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/22/what-do-they-expect-return

" Ever since the Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates to unlimited and undisclosed special interest and corporate spending in our elections, President Obama has repeatedly warned that these undisclosed contributions will give special interests even more power over politicians. And, with that power, they plan to return to the days when lobbyists wrote the laws in Washington to benefit special interests at the expense of the American people.

The President fought hard to block this troubling development by repeatedly calling on Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act -- legislation that would establish the strongest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by special interests. But Congressional Republicans blocked every attempt we made to put our democracy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the American people. Their opposition wasn’t rooted in policy differences, because they’ve supported this type of legislation in the past. Rather, it was a cynical decision based on electoral considerations. And now, thanks to aggressive investigative reporting, we are getting a glimpse of the consequences lax disclosure rules have on our political process."

Make it so.

law suit they brought before the court there was nothing to do with contributing money, as much as they wanted, and as anonymous as they wanted. It was only about running that video or any other videos or campaign messages up to the day of the election.

The five republican activist judges added that provision themselves and made it legal. Go read the original summation of the case and then the one the activist republican justices voted on.