Sen. Sanders calls for constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/sen-sanders-calls-for-constitutional-amendment-to-overrule-citizens-united/

Posted on 05.19.11
By Stephen C. Webster
Categories: Featured, Nation

Appearing with MSNBC’s liberal opinion host Cenk Uygur, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said he would support a constitutional amendment that overrule the Supreme Court’s controversial “Citizens United” decision that repealed nearly 100 years of campaign finance law.

The decision permits corporations to anonymously give unlimited sums of money to groups not officially connected with presidential campaigns.

The Washington, D.C.-based Committee for Economic Development suggested last year that the ruling could have the effect of turning corporations into miniature political parties, leading to what one of the Center’s trustees called the eventual corruption of American democracy.

In fact I have not met one person that knows about the ruling that is for it and when I tell people about the ruling who don't know about it, they are horrified.

It is really hard to believe that so many people are so unaware of so many vitally important facts.

Welcome to Dumb-Ass America.

Sonoman

I can't remember the M$M ever even mentioning Citizens United.

:kick:

I love this guy.

Wish him success.

of what American politics can and should be like. Although I doubt a constitutional amendment would pass, I'm very happy to see Bernie speak up about the "Citizens United" ruling. Keep up the good work Bernie!

The decision permits corporations to anonymously give unlimited sums of money to groups not officially connected with presidential campaigns.

No. Clarence Thomas would have barred the disclosure requirements. But the majority opinion upheld them.

Also, contrary to the article, the ruling does not say that corporations are people. Rather, it is based on long precedent that "the press" includes corporations. As it did, even when it was written. Does freedom of the press not apply to NY Times, NBC, and Fox News? I've seen a lot of discussion about an amendment to overturn this ruling. But I've yet to see a decent proposal of what that amendment would look like. It would have to repeal part of the 1st amendment. Civil libertarians rightly get concerned about the details of that.

:hippie:

Over a year has gone by since the Citizens United decision and no one in Congress, including Senator Sanders, has introduced a constitutional amendment to overrule it.

It would repeal part of the 1st amendment. Those of us who are civil libertarians want any such exception carefully excised with a scalpel, not whacked out with a machete. And get leery when even a scalpel is taken to the 1st amendment. The various alternatives I have seen proposed seem either overly broad or hopelessly muddled.

And much of that muddlement stems from incorrect understanding of what the decision says, e.g., the false notion that it ruled corporations are people.

:hippie:

The "false notion" arises from the 1886 Supreme Court case "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company". In the case, the court supposedly ruled that a corporation is a person and is protected by the fourteenth amendment, however this is a falsity as the court did not actually rule that. According to Thom Hartmann, this myth arises from a head note inserted by the court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis, who had also served as President of two railroad companies not directly related to the case, which claimed that court had ruled in favor of the corporations. While you're correct in stating that the recent "Citizens United" ruling did not rule that corporations are people, it should be understood that the ruling of "corporations are people" stems from a genuine court case, and that the recent "Citizens United" ruling was based on the idea that the 1886 Supreme Court truly did rule in favor of "corporations s people"-that is, the modern court ruled as it did because it tried to follow precedence, even though the accepted "precedence" is false. Personally, I don't see why we'd have to repeal part of the first amendment if the whole case is based off the original 1886 case which was based of the fourteenth amendment-not the first. Simply put, if we stop observing Davis' head note in the 1886 case, we wouldn't have to engage in a debate over how to change the first amendment because corporations would no longer be allowed to make their case since they'd have nothing to base it on.

corporations are not people.

Second, the wording needs to state that in order to give each person an equal voice, and to not allow those with the most money to dominate open debate, a standard shall be placed that no individual person is allowed to donate no more than x amount of dollars to a single candidate.

Furthermore, each person wishing to make a contribution must make the contribution directly to the candidate and not third party intermediaries.

This should be a good start, and I could think of a few other things I would like to see added to such an amendment.

First, the ruling wasn't based on the notion that corporations are people. So an amendment that said corporations aren't people would have zero impact on the ruling.

Second, the ruling doesn't overturn laws limiting campaign contributions. Texas has a law that outright forbids corporations from giving to political campaigns. It's an old law, one that would not pass today's GOP legislature. Tom DeLay has been convicted of that law. A felony. I do not see that law being overturned because of Citizens United. The Hammer is hoping his lawyers will conjure a conflict. But he's desperate to avoid a well-deserved stay in the slammer. I think every state should pass such a law. As well as the federal government. That doesn't require Constitutional amendment. Just electing some politicians not so tied to corporate money.

The ruling was based on the notion that corporations are part of the press, and that laws restricting what corporations published during campaigns don't withstand 1st amendment scrutiny. The historical basis for that should be pretty obvious. When the Constitution was written, the press was almost entirely a set of companies that published newspapers. 1st amendment jurisprudence since then has extended that to include film and broadcast and all sort of other media. The problem with writing an amendment to undo that is how to do so without squelching, well, the press. On what basis do you say that Keith Olbermann's broadcasts are protected free speech, but not, say, Martin-Lockheed's or Exxon's?

And what about GE's? See the problem?

:hippie:

you were much clearer this time.


Keith Olbermann and others like him are from MEDIA corporations whose sole intent is the spreading public information, while Exxon Mobile is in no way defined as a MEDIA corporation. There are limits to free speech-such as not being protected under the first amendment if you words are going to incite violence- why can't we just add another restriction which says that corporations that are NOT STRICTLY MEDIA corporations aren't protected by the first amendment? There has to be some way to get the framework of McCain-Feingold into an amendment. The court doesn't want to accept these restrictions but I say that congress should still go in this direction on their own. This website was pretty useful if anyone is interested: http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/34-1/citizens_united_leaves_many_divided_9.html Thank you for clarifying your argument by the way.

"The spreading of public information" is not the sole intent of most media corporations. Corporations such as News Corporation (which owns Fox), and Time Warner are intended to make a profit and to satisfy their share-holders. Their media role is dedicated to that purpose, and may change if they fail at it. NBC, also, though its sole owner is now GE. Not only are these corporations intended for profit, but they are bought, sold, aggregated, and spun off as business strategies change. And those changes may tightly yoke them to companies that formerly had nothing to do with media.

Is GE a media company? What you've just proposed would have given Keith Olbermann 1st amendment protection only if you answer "yes." If you answer "no," then under your proposed rules, Olbermann would have been silenced during the 2008 election since he would be counted a GE spokesman, rather than someone in the media.

See the problem?

:hippie:

you propose then? I do realize that most media companies don't truly care about informing the public, I was trying to contrast a "standard" corporation (Exxon Mobile in this case) with a "media/news" corporation, even though such corporations are "media/news" in name only.

And that's far different from the easy interpretation that many want to hear, that the decision was about treating corporations as citizens.

But at least, I would extend to federal law what Texas forbids, which is direct contributions from corporations to campaigns.

:hippie:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/fascism-coming-to-a-court_b_226256.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NTrd_5YSXg

http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/34-1/citizens_united_leaves_many_divided_9.html

Note that the site which acknowledges your opinion suggested the solution of exemptions for Media corporations-like I said-and that in the first link, Scalia is reported to have used a quote from another case as support for the modern decision and that this quote points out the SIGNIFICANCE and IMPACT of the fourteenth amendment:
I'm aware that Scalia did not directly state that the quote was a rationale for their recent decision in the "Citizens United" ruling.

Also take note that Feingold-who has a campaign which is BASED on overturning "Citizens United" and fighting other forms of corporate control and who, like you, believed it necessary to repeal part of the first amendment-acknowledged the possible validity of working on the fourteenth amendment as a solution instead of the first amendment.

I don't think that we'd be able to extend the Texas law to other states. The same people who support the "Citizens United" decision would simply call the law another form of restriction of free speech and block it.

There are plenty of examples that I could use to support my positions but I'm done expending effort on this debate.

If you have any disagreements, that's fine, let's just agree to disagree.

Scalia also quoted at length from opinions in the Grosjean v. American Press Co case, "holding that corporations are guaranteed the 'freedom of speech and of the press, safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Every newspaper of significance, from prior to the War of Independence, has been run as a business. Typically, incorporated. If freedom of the press doesn't extend to newspapers, to what does it apply? Yes, I know. You want to distinguish media companies from non-media companies. What branch of government do you propose decide that? Will media companies need a license? Among other things, the problem is that business is incestuous. GE owns NBC. Does that a) make GE a media company, or b) mean that NBC should no longer have 1st amendment protection?

:hippie:

and have been, run as not for profit.

When you suggest the 1st amendment doesn't apply to for-profit media, that includes all the broadcast networks, all film distribution companies, all of Hollywood, most book publishers, the vast majority of of radio and TV stations, magazines, and newspapers, and most major websites. Are you really proposing the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to them?

Really?

I would add that the major 1st amendment jurisprudence of the last century has been cut on books, magazines, and film made and distributed for profit.

:hippie:

true news organizations will show both sides of an issue, not just one sided slant. Maddow, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and any other partisan hack is not news, it's opinion.

I would only argue for a sixty day ban on issue coverage that is opinion and not news.

Other countries do issues blackout x amount of days prior to elections by third parties, and it works great.

Which nations have a media ban 60 days prior to an election?

:hippie:

in Europe ban campaigning by outsiders by either 30 or 60 days prior to elections.

The one that allows that.

And by way of example, explain whether Olbermann's commentaries prior to the 2008 election would be banned or not.

:hippie:

Actually, the Citizens United ruling had a lot do with the notion that corporations are people. In previous ruling, the SC ruled that corporations are entitled to the same rights as individual people. That set the precedent for future rulings.

The current ruling allows companies like GE to be recognized as private citizens and dump as much money as they like into social issues. Another way around this would be amendment that would prevent ANY company from "campaigning" on a political issue for 60 days prior to the general election. I would also argue that a media company does not push an issue, it informs individuals as to what the issues are and the current state of affairs surrounding said issue.

Pushing a commercial for "clean coal" is not the same as a 3 minute news segment on frakking.

If the rule is "follow the money," then Keith Olbermann was a paid GE spokesman. He worked for NBC, which is owned by GE. How was his paycheck anything other than GE money dumped into social issues?

So there's your challenge. Tell me what exception you would carve from the 1st amendment that simultaneously a) would cover Olbermann during the 2008 campaign, while b) preventing GE from dumping as much money as they like into social issues.

:hippie:

Thanks for your helpful explanation of this.

something in the interest of your constituents, as well as almost all americans

this NEEDS to be done, and soon

Thank you Senator.

The k and the r.

until corporate money is taken out of the election equation, democracy is nothing but a very flimsy facade, covering up.....call it what you will but it starts with an "f" and ends with an ''ism.''

of this nature on Democracy Now! back in February.

for ratification. Therein lies the double rub. First with republicans blocking it's passage, the amendment likely will get approved. Second, enough red or purple states exists to prevent ratification. It is high time that people get it set like stone in their heads, all the money in the world can't beat grass roots voter engagement efforts where the grassroots organizers have their heads screwed on right.

The announcement makes it DOA, but it's something to fight for in the future.