E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA group of Senate Democrats are proposing a constitutional amendment that would grant Congress authority to regulate campaign finance. The senators say this amendment would allow Congress to "correct" the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling.
They amendment unveiled today has three main points. It:
- Would authorize Congress to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns and allow states to regulate campaign spending at their level
- Includes the authority to regulate and limit independent expenditures, like those from Super PACs
- Would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, but instead would allow Congress to pass campaign-finance-reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges.
"The latest reinterpretation of the Constitution has left our political system vulnerable like never before,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) of Citizens United. “We believe it is much healthier in a democracy to have this crucial battle of ideals fought out by publically accountable officeholders"
Udall said the rise of Super PACs and their ads are harmful to the country.
"These ads are overwhelmingly nasty, negative and mean-spirited,” he added. “Letting this go unchecked is a threat to our democracy. Campaigns should be about the best ideas not the biggest checkbooks. It's time to put elections back in the hands of American voters"
Another co-sponsor, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) added, "If there's only one thing we can do to change the environment on Capitol Hill and in Washington for the better, it’s this amendment."
He continued, "If you want to take our political campaigns out of the hands of special-interest groups and super PACs and groups we've never heard of, this is the way to do it."
Durbin said Congress needs to take this power out of hands of Supreme Court.
Leave a Comment:
How would an inexperienced guy raise a $billion to get re-elected?
A couple things: 1) You don't need to put a $ sign in front of the word "billion" 2) Reelection needs no hyphen.
You had better pray your party never succeeds in making mastery of the English language a prerequisite for citizenship.
I wonder what this fine gang of senators has done to ensure that the senate pass a budget?
Anyone heard what this particular group has done regarding the creation of jobs?
Nisl - you feel important and smart now? Perhaps a tutorial for all on the proper use of hyphens?
I know I could use it.
Spanky - People like you and UAW always make me feel smart.
Everything is relative.
Now that you have acknowledged your intellectual shortcomings maybe you could keep your uninformed wingnut drivel to yourself.
:)
I would much rather see these politicians banter around about raising campaign money until we can get a better leader in the White House.....
It's cool nisl - the people around here make me feel rich. Hey nisl - is this right: I am a 1%-er?
But seriously hit us with a little tutorial on hyphens.
Also many here could use a little refresher on it, its, and it's.
You might not know this nisl, but many here did not even go to college.
Can you just imagine?
Yay! Congress needs to do what ever it can to repeal the Citizens United ruling.
In the meantime, the GOP/TP busied themselves with their usual Do Nothing obstructionism and propaganda dissemination:
Okay, so I took reports about Syria and edited it a bit. Hey, JS1 does it...
Yes Spanky, I can imagine. I'm fairly certain I can point out the uneducated people on this blog with ease.
Congress is trying to regulate campaign money?
What on earth are they thinking?
I'm very sorry, but almost anything they might try, even if they could get it passed, would die in the US Supreme Court.
The only viable ways to undo Citizens United, which is a Constitutional law case, are either to change the composition of the Court, or to amend the Constitution.
Let's get after it.
Works for me. But let's hope you're not actually projecting the future.
TP, I'm sure this bill appeals to the Occupy crowd. But, It's getting cold out now. The problem of un-lawful assembly will go away as these people retreat back to Mommy's basement. Granted the tea party had a few wacko's in the group but the message was united towards just leave us alone and stop spending our money. These are pretty easy demands for a government to grant. As opposed to grant us "free education", jobs that pay more than were worth, mortgages with payments when we want to make them, etc. etc.
So nisl - you want to explain to TruePatriot that the congress does not "repeal" decisions made by the supreme court?
True Patriot,
Note all here who defend:
1. The-One-Who-Has-The-Most-Money-Wins. Then they call it:
2. 'democracy' and 'fair and free elections'.
Naw, Navy - I call it the golden rule.
Hey, Anna Molly,
The first sentence indicates that they are proposing a constitutional amendment.
If we're truly going to change the composition of the Court, we're going to need Obama for 4 more years, and 8 years of Hilary after that.
Shoot, if they are going to start doing amendments to the constitution, then maybe they should actually repeal the 16th amendment.
Obama will veto any law that will limit his fundraiser ability.However I do agree donations must come only from individuals , no organizations, unions , corporations or foreign government like Clinton did.
[So nisl - you want to explain to TruePatriot that the congress does not "repeal" decisions made by the supreme court?]
Aww...Spanky has his crosshairs on another unsuspecting blogger...ain't that cute...
Sorry, "counselor"...it looks like your 15 minutes is up...
Yes UAW, the demands you've listed on behalf of OWS are pretty ridiculous. What I'm curious to know is whether a) you invented these demands because you feel unable to rebut the actual OWS grievances or b) you're just incredibly misinformed?
Campaign finance reform is desperatly needed in this country. Anyone not thinking so would have to be a damned fool.
Brian,
I think UAW was right on the mark about the demands of the OWS. The funniest one I saw them "demanding" was the elimination of all debt, worldwide. LOL
Let's face it. These are simply misinformed kids who want to be a part of something "cool". Go where the babes and the drugs are, and camp out on the street.
Sure, there were a few groups that tried to take advantage of the OWS phenomenon. The unions, the communist party. Whatever. This will dry up and blow away with the winter winds.
"A group of Senate Democrats are proposing a constitutional amendment that would grant Congress authority to regulate campaign finance. The senators say this amendment would allow Congress to "correct" the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling."
But of course they wouldn't limit contributions by unions, which have contributed about 10 times more net funds to the Democrats than corporations have to Republicans.
The REAL reason the Democrats are upset about 'Citizens United' is that they lose much of their huge contribution advantage from the unions and trial lawyers. For the 20 years prior to 2009, the unions and trial lawyers contributed a net of more than 3 times as much to the Democrats as businesses did to the Republicans.
I love it and wish them luck, but I don't think any constitutional amendment stands a chance.
We have a stacked Supreme Court that believes that corporations are people. Some animals are more equal than others.
Say Wayne - I'd read that somewhere once.
Was it a story on OWS or a book about socialism?
huh.
It's in the Facebook rules for Farmville, Spanky.
From each, according to their gifts, to each, straight into their giftbox.
You're right spanker,
The tendency for the wealthy ruling class to dominate the working people does indeed sound a great deal like how communist Russia did in fact work out.
I thought you were all about the orange baskets?
Orwell, Rand, Keynes and Friedman.
Me, I like Entertainment weekly and I confess I am a whore for Ok and People.
Still reeling from the Kardasian divorce. So 'unexpected.'
That's the first thing you've written about yourself that appears to have a kernel of truth.
Spanky,
Maybe Wayne was refering to "Animal Farm".
And, yes, Kim's marriage on the rocks really hurt all our feelings. She needs another huge marriage right away. You know, the hair of the dog that bit you??
Gee, and all the House Republicans can come up with is stamping In God We Trust on more government merchandise.
Gee and I am sure that this Dem bill will no doubt not be applied to Union donations.
What's up Amy?
You hating on the House, yet it has passed a buget and 15 jobs related bills.
Amy - how many jobs related bills has it passed?
And how about a budget? Amy- that the Senate is in violation of the law of no issue to you?
15 jobs related bills ? hehehe, oh sorry, thats right the republicans call deregulating and tax cuts to the corporate wealthy, job bills. oops, sorry again, i should have said "job creators". well after 30 years of republican stimulas "job bills" that seemed to have failed. I'm sure these republican job bills will bring us lots of jobs, this time.
they also think taking a womens right to choose as a jobs bill...They must as they have PASSED 5 bills against women since March! Amazing...pretty soon they will be telling us we can't make as much money as men...oh never mind that is already being done...But next they will say women should not/ can't vote! I am sure that is coming... the rats
The Democrats want a constitutional amendment, to repeal the First Amendment. Un freaking believable.
They want to put our free speech rights in the hands of government bureaucrats. How's that gonna work out?
Campaign finance reform was put in to prevent rich people from buying elections, and to promote competitive elections. First amendment be damned, important policies were being promoted!
How did it work out? As usual with government regulations, the exact opposite of what was intended.
More wealthy individuals elected, and fewer competitive elections.
"They want to put our free speech rights in the hands of government bureaucrats. How's that gonna work out?"
Pretty good, I'd think, if the free speech concerns making us proclaim we trust in some God....
Who proposed repeal of the First Amendment?
...and since when does money equal speech?
"That's great it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, and aeroplane. Lenny Bruce is not afraid!"
The Supreme court held in Citizens United that specific regulations limiting free speech rights were violative of the First Amendment. The decision originated in a dispute over whether a small non-profit corporation could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton. Bureaucrats muzzled the playing of this film.
The Democrats now support a constitutional amendment to destroy such free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Which takes us back to question #2...since when does money equal speech?
Come on Bob - do you actually have any hope that Noid or Drive By actually read the Citizens' opinion?
That is funny.
Although Drive By did bust out a misguided reference to hearsay earlier.
What's up Drive By, you fresh off a Perry Mason marathon, or catching up in old Ally McBeals?
Either way, keep trying.
So Drive By - where are all the jobs? What is Reid up to these days? Obama go anything since his bi-partisan smack down?
Hey, wait. Drive By says the government does create things and hires people all the time. So Drive By - why won't it hire all the unemployed? Why won;t it even do a WPA?
This time instead of shovel give them spoons - then they'd have to hire more. You know less efficient and all.
Drive BY?
Spanky, since this thread is about campaign reform, Drive By and Noid are actually more on topic than you...
You are deflacting and trying to change the subject.
...deflecting...
Flecting, flacting - I was responding to Bob.
Then I responded to Drive By.
But down to the actual matter - Citizens' United is about free speech. It effects campaign reform, but free speech is the issue.
But then again, topic, smopic. First Reads 'topics' have been sucking mightily of late.
In other words - you are not the boss of me. I shall deflact all over myself if I want to.
Uhhh. . . "affects", Spanky. "It affects campaign reform. " You need tutorial help with more than mere hyphens.
Okay, but, seriously, can anyone answer my question? Since when does speech equal money?
You know Da Noid,
Money talks, and B.S. walks??
Given Congress' record over the past few months, I wonder if it is wise to give them any more power over anything.
Also, wouldn't passage of a Constitutional Amendment be a long drawn out process? Couldn't a more immediate solution to campaign financing problems be found?
Don't they know what this would do to thier messiah.
Boy, I'm sure going to miss the Herman Cain smoking ad and the Perry ads, and the Bachmann and Gingrich candidacies. How will these candidates ever be able to communicate without all that money?
Money is the root of all evil. That's why the churches ask for it every week.....
And what is the biggest money sucking enterprise in the history of mankind?
You know - the one that takes in $2.6 Trillion evil dollars a year?
That's why the government compels you to pay it every second of every day.
Great point Mike.
Money is a corrupting influence on our democracy. whether through anonymous contributions to shadowy "independent" organizations that run false and baseless attack advertisements on behalf of Republicans or more traditional donations from the Wall Street elite to Obama's reelection campaign, the explosion of money in politics is distressing. The key to true reform in America is to eradicate all private donations and give every candidate a level playing field, free of special interests. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
"Money is a corrupting influence on our democracy"
Unlimited government power is an even more corrupting influence. It will destroy democracy. To have government fund campaigns, and regulate every aspect of elections, will result in sham elections, where the government would always be the winner, not the people.
Kinda like funding public media --PBS-- led to a sham biased state-run media.
I have always been for campaign finance reform so I am totally with these guys. (BTW-Senator Udall being my Senator-although I'm Republican--gotta back him.) At one time he tried to pass a bill that would limit fillibustering when Brown was elected but it was the Democrats that shot that down. Might be biased here but he is probably one of a handful of politicians that actually care about how the government is run as opppsed to bringing home the bacon for New Mexico.
I believe without some campaign finance reform our government will continue to be bought and sold on a scale any stock market would be proud of.
I read a story a few months ago that said that for the Presidential Campaign 2012 there would be an estimated $7 Billion spent just by the candidates alone, not to mention the super pac money. $7 Billion is about the equivalent of almost a quarter of a million families of four average annual income. How disgusting! Remember this does not calculate the super pacs into this equation!
Good luck with this Democrats! It is too little to late politically. The GOP/RNC are now swimming in Big Oil donations/bribes. The Koch Brothers are going to make sure that every GOP/RNC politician votes against this idea completely. The very rich have a lot invested in this GOP/RNC controlled Congress, and have no intention of giving it up. The Wall Street Bankers, will make donations/bribes to the GOP/RNC. To make sure that no new financial regulations are ever passed. That is fact!
A billion dollars to spend on getting reelected. How sad ... when all those poor people on wall street living in tents are almost out of weed. Common Mr.President how about pitching in for a couple z's.
We are out totaly out of control ... billions ... TRILLIONS. I feel like I hit the lottery when I get a couple hours overtime. Our priorities are really screwed up. I wouldn't donate a nickel to any politician. They already have the world by the ass. A great income,benifits,junkets,power,all the bottled water they can drink on our dime. I shouda been a politician. I could be as corrupt as them guys ... Nah... it ain't worth it.
For all you nay sayers, the flood gates are wide open now, anything Congress can do to shift the power back to the people is a good thing. I think everyone who wants their voice heard should back this bill. I know the devil is in the details but at least the conversation is open for discussion. Anyone with a half a brain can see there is too much money in politics. Its obvious by the way Congress constantly votes against the best interest of the country for the benefit of a few. Also, I would think you would be infavor of this because it will level the playing field for all (even the Republicans).
What we need is term limits; not caps on campaign financing!
Obama must be fearful the Union contributions may not be enuf to keep the Dems in power in the next decade.
What we need is term limits. That would eliminate the need for massive amounts of campaign funding for "career" politicians. But rarely are term limits given "front and center" staging by the incumbent politicians. I wonder why? Well, let me guess. Campaign finance reform is about keeping incumbents....well... incumbent.
It's been a while since we've had an amendment. This sounds like a decent one.
The problem with this bill is IT only limits a few not every body ,or every organisation , it is being put forth by the democrats ,but does not limit Unions which historically support the democrats with large donations ,ETC,
FROM AN INDEPENDENT POINT OF VIEW ,I would say this bill is extremely one sided designed to give financial superiority to the Democrats , thus giving them the financial power
Do we need financial campaign reform yes , but only a fair balanced approach will fix the problem
WHY DON'T WE SUBMIT THIS IDEA place a limit on the amount of individual funds one can receive , after that all campaign donations go into a campaign pool which is divided equally among the candidates , this would result in a fair and balanced system of funding for all candidates ,even a poor boy like me could run for office ,
LETS DO THAT and watch the Democrats scream FOUL
If the dizzy Dems are sponsering this Bill, you can bet there is something seriously wrong with it.
Isn't this a bit like the fox guarding the hen house? Just wondering.....
During Obama's '08 campaign he chanted "There will NO lobbyists in my White House !"
For 2012, he's revised it...."There will No lobbyists in my WH..... UNLESS they go through the back door." ( wink, wink)