Quantcast

Senators Introduce Consitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

2011_11_2_durbin.jpg
AP Photo/Nam Y Huh
Seven Democratic Senators, including Illinois' Dick Durbin, introduced a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision. The 2010 Supreme Court decision gave corporations the ability to spend money directly on campaign advertising anonymously.

The amendment gives Congress the ability to regulate and limit money spent on federal campaigns, while states would regulate spending on their own elections. In addition, the amendment gives ability to regulate and limit monies coming from super PACs. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, the amendment does not impose regulations, but allows Congress the ability to pass campaign finance reform measures that stand up to Constitutional challenges.

Finally, the amendment would overturn the Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which called money spent in elections a form of free speech. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), another co-sponsor, called the Buckley decision “one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court has rendered in the last hundred years.”

In a press release posted on the website of New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, the bill's primary sponsor, Durbin said the amendment would “enable Congress to enact common sense reforms that cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court” and that the Court’s decision Citizens United "jeopardize core principles of our democracy and threaten to give corporations and special interests an outsized influence on our elections.”

Obviously, such an amendment would face a long, and potentially hostile road, given Republican opposition to such bills as the DISCLOSE Act. However, with recent polls showing large amounts of disapproval for Republicans in Congress, along with increased public support for Occupy Wall Street movements which have denounced Citizens United, their constituencies may yet turn up the heat in favor of such an amendment.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • verity2
    Who the hell are you? I'd say most that dumped MSM for better news sources are aware of of the Citizens United ruling. That would tally large in the Occupy movement. I got my posting mixed up with another site. Read how you want, Ugh er CHICAGOD, your privilege, even if your take was ass backwards
  • verity2
    Thanks Barbara; It shows, the pressure is on. I doubt that most people know about the Citizens United case yet but now that Occupy has attention drawn to the movement, this could become a more common knowledge. Some are expecting a blowout but it doesn't have to be that way. We just chip away at the foundations that are in effect us. Their paradigm exists because we've been brainwashed through a constant barrage of their propaganda but as we educate ourselves, we empower ourselves to see through their subterfuge. I'd say,time is against them.
  • ChicagoD
    Wait, what?

    Who the hell is Barbara? Also, you honestly believe for even a split second that Occupy brought attention to Citizens United that other fora (like, every news outlet in the country at the time) failed to bring?

    Ugh.
  • Good luck with that.
blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@chicagoist.com