Forum Post: Amend the Constitution to reverse Citizens United
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 11:14 p.m. EST by Thomas62e
(3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Let's get behind this movement to amend the Constitution. Amending is the only way to permanently reverse the Supreme Court's unilateral and undemocratic decision to grant corporations constitutional rights intended for individual citizens. see the link below:
http://www.pfaw.org/Amend
Campaign finance reform should be the #1 goal of this movement. It is the root of most problems in our democracy. Here is a new PAC dedicated to this: http://www.wolf-pac.com/
Like a Constitutional Amendment campaign finance reform is an impossible dream because it would require the support of those who benefit from the current corruption. That is not going to happen.
There are things that need to happen first. Things that can happen if we put our weight behind them.
SEE: Campaign Finance Reform – The Impossible Dream http://liberate-american-democracy.blogspot.com/
and also WOLF PAC. http://www.wolf-pac.com/
yes. let's amend! in the mean time... let's just throw the bums out.
Americans Elect http://www.americanselect.org/
It's not the only way. The constitution does not create corporations. They are created by the corporate laws congress had either conceived or copied. Therefore, the status of a corporation can easily be changed by congress rewriting its laws to make clear that corporations are not people but are a different kind of legally constituted entity that does not have all the rights of a person.
This would be a worthy step in taking the battle to the turf of the people who created this great recession.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
I agree completely. There are many proposed amendments out there relating to this issue. Some are pretty lame, so be careful. The exact language of an amendment is vitally important.
This should be on any list of demands, along with election reform!
And here... http://movetoamend.org/
http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Why anybody would suggest that political peach should be chilled is totally beyond me.
You want to see how corporations funnel money? This is how:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2011/mar/04/rory-reids-gubernatorial-campaign-circumvented-con/
The penalty? A $25,000 fine.
Hilary was busted taking money from Chinese crime syndicates. And Obama has NEVER revealed the source of his funding. Do you want to know why?
And then you wonder why Conservative non-profits make derogatory films which target both Republicans and Democrats?
Get real... we need these corporations that broadcast on cable TV. To say no to Citizens United is to say Yes, in today's televised environment, to FCC control of political speech.
Today's environment isn't televised anymore. Lots of people don't even have a TV anymore, and many of those that do don't have cable television because they've got the thing hooked up to a laptop. Syndicated television is in crisis mode, has been for a few years now.
Moreover a constitutional amendment to strip corporations of their "personhood" wouldn't overturn the rest of the Citizens United decision in any case. It would just strip corporations of their personhood.
Finally, not allowing broadcasters to mention candidates around the time of primaries hardly amounts to "FCC control of political speech". Citizens United was never banned from airing what they aired, only from airing it at that particular time. It's pretty common in most democracies to limit the influence of television broadcasters around the time of elections, and the purpose isn't to shove jackboots down our throats, but to ensure more fair elections without undue influence being exerted.
You know as well as I do that Citizens United NEVER made the assertion of a corporate "personhood."
Not that it matters, speech should not be so chilled. The decision was absolutely correct.
If you want to create legislation that serves to define the corporation as a non-living entirely, or a machine, go ahead. But that's not what a corporation is, and obviously, even if deprived of the ability to "speak," it would not limit their ability to convey - we have books, the Internet, any other available means through which the association can speak. .
As a 503c, OWS is exactly this type of corporation.
And contrary to your assertion, elections are won today entirely by television.
Who said they did? You're conflating the court decision with CU.
Speech isn't "chilled" by preventing undue influence around the time of elections. There's plenty of time in the lead up for organizations to flood the airwaves with all the money and repetitive messages they can afford. Nothing wrong with a little sober reflection closer to the election ...
And no, elections today are not won entirely by television, any political group that does not harness the Internet these days and relies on just running some television alone is doomed to fail.
Who said that it did? The original poster uses the word "reverse" and you yourself use these words:
441B absolutely had to be reconsidered and the court's decision, overall, was right on.
"Electioneering communications" are a ridiculous assertion anyway in light of the Internet.
The FEC should not license speech. It should not chill speech.
This is definitely a First Amendment issue...
Besides, the Fed does not prohibit states from passing their own election laws so what is it you PARTY people are afraid of?
I think you're working hard to misunderstand the OP. He wanted to reverse the part of the decision that granted personhood, not the decision itself (he could maybe use some classes in effective communication, but come on). Who would make a constitutional amendment to overturn a court case? Think about it, it's absurd. Apply a little common sense here.
Almost as stupid as Obaba suggesting that a Congressional committee could overturn it. But I do recall him suggesting that...
Maybe you weren't paying attention, as here. I don't know the case you're referring to but your interpretation ability is now suspect.
Man, you really need to follow politics a little more. Because that WAS the Obama response to Citizens United.
Not American so I don't follow your politics that closely. But just from what I'm reading of his response, it seems very reasonable.
"By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law - including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.
This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. 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. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act."
That seems like a very reasonable concern, looking into the decision. Of course his motives are self-serving. The Dems don't get as much corporate backing, usually, as the Reps so it benefits them to curtail it. Nonetheless ...
The 'white sheets" here all falsely represent the specifics of the case, including McCain Feingold.
I'm not afraid.
Corporations simply do not have tongues.
Hillary Clinton was outspent by Barack Obama by 3-1 and 4-1 margins in key midwest states. It's a cheap shot to imply she gets her money from thieves when it was obvious that besides her big donors, she had a lot of small donors as well.
Barack Obama was the only 2008 candidate to accept pre-paid credit card with fakes names and addresses.
Not thieves - foreign entities, and it was not a cheap shot, it's a fact - and Obama undoubtedly received much of his financing by similar means.
Compared to Obama, Hillary Clinton ran a white wedding dress fundraising campaign.
From the general public's point of view - which is me - we are largely uncertain because he has never disclosed his contributions. We are aware of extremes in election fraud but still, I find the failure to disclose a rather scary thought.
Look at Rory Reid and his use of Pacs... I mean we all know it goes on, but even when they're caught, it's a slap on the wrist and business as usual.
These people are all crooked to an extreme.
And then they attack 10 second ads for a pay-to-view Direct TV spot that advocates against Hilary?
It's just ridiculous.
What I found really disturbing was that Pelosi was accepting VISA IPO's in 2008 even as she was letting the credit card bill die in her house while at the same time Obama was the only candidate accepting millions upon millions of dollars in pre-paid credit card donations that had fake names like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on them.
How about links for each accusation, rather than make it seem like your accusations are all located within the one link you did provide.
Why don't you just follow politics? It was well publicized and so was the Party's immediate backpedal. Better yet, take a close look at Bill Clinton and Gore.
Links... you all live on sound bytes and white sheets. Knowledge gained in such a manor is highly biased.
I had three blogs during 2008 about the democratic campaign, wrote over a hundred articles based on research. There were so many unethical instances in 2008, about 80% of them involved Obama's campaign and the incredible help he got from people who just should have stayed neutral until the democratic votes were counted.
Yea... I'll check out your blogs.
Here are the links, www.hillary-wins.com www.caucuscheating.com www.fair-reflection.com www.florida-michigan.com
I was actually neutral until the beginning of February 2008. Keith Olbermann's maniacally insane rants against Hillary Clinton, followed by Huffington post doing the same thing, followed by my finding out that Soros and Arianna Huffington appeared on the same Charlie Rose show to promote their books, turned me against what I began to realize was a media conspiracy to dictate who would be the democratic nominee in 2008.
I also felt that Hillary Clinton became a better communicator as time went on, and Obama just glided into the finish, losing over the final 10 weeks of the campaign by around 6 to 8 percent in the popular vote even though he was outspending Clinton 3-1 in media buys.
Yes, I noticed that, too.
I didn't vote for either but I did follow the primaries.
During the debates, I was focused on McCain because he was the only one that brought up fiscal responsibility, the national debt, corrupt lobbying efforts, etc. Corrupt or otherwise, I liked his anger, the sense of conviction.
I advocated a protest vote against the democratic party in 2008 for destroying the right of their own voters to determine who would be the democratic nominee. McCain had 1% of the vote about this time four years ago and came back to win the republican nomination.
Amazingly enough, Fox News apparently was able to follow the republican candidates without forcing who they wanted onto the republican voters.
It's four years later and the same stenchy heads are running the democratic party.
Well, they're not only blatantly corrupt but also hardcore ideologues. And most people are of much more moderate opinion.
thank you for using the word moderate. The reason I came to really like Hillary Clinton was when I realized she was a moderate liberal, whereas Barack Obama is a, "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat and give it you so you can thank me", kind of a politician.
I don't think you can succeed in politics for very long if your policies do not appear reasonable. And those of the hardcore ideologue definitely do not appear reasonable to the mainstream moderate.
[Removed]