Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Democrats push legislation to overturn Citizens United ruling
The Hill ^ | September 20, 2011 | Mike Lillis

Posted on 09/20/2011 2:37:34 PM PDT by jazusamo

A pair of House Democrats introduced legislation Tuesday to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizen's United ruling that freed corporations to spend unlimited money on elections.

Sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the proposal would amend the Constitution to empower Congress and the states to limit corporate spending on political activities.

"Last year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of law and declared open season on our democracy," Conyers said in a statement. "It is individual voters who should determine the future of this nation, not corporate money."

In the controversial "Citizens United" decision, the Supreme Court ruled that government limits on corporate funding of political broadcasts for or against individual candidates violate the rights to free speech guaranteed under the Constitution.

The ruling effectively undid certain provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which was designed to prevent a deluge of corporate money in elections.

The 5-4 decision split the ideological wings of the court, with the centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote.

The majority argued there is nothing in the First Amendment to indicate that corporations shouldn't be afforded the same constitutional protections as individuals.

"Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker," wrote the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Writing in dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, representing the court's liberal wing, argued that corporations and individuals often have very different interests. The decision, he warned, "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation."

Edwards on Tuesday argued that a spike in corporate spending on campaigns since the decision has proven Stevens correct.

“Since that flawed ruling was issued, campaign spending by outside groups including corporations surged more than four-fold to reach nearly $300 million in the 2010 election cycle," Edwards said in a statement.

Reversing the "Citizens United" ruling, Edwards said, "is the only way to once and for all put the American people, and not corporations, in charge of our treasured democracy."


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: citizensunited; conyers

1 posted on 09/20/2011 2:37:41 PM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Funny how they don’t want to limit spending by unions.


2 posted on 09/20/2011 2:39:45 PM PDT by mkmensinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkmensinger

Exactly, they’ve got the union thugs in their pockets but not enough corporations.


3 posted on 09/20/2011 2:42:14 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

F squared C.

Fat f****** chance.

Helloooooooo dim-bulb-crats, we’ve got the house, you SOBs.


4 posted on 09/20/2011 2:42:49 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
...the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizen's United ruling... "Last year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of law... The ruling effectively undid certain provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law...

There's that funny Democrat math again.

8 years between 2002 and 2010 has become "decades."

-PJ

5 posted on 09/20/2011 2:45:22 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Conyers is a really dim bulb and this proves it.


6 posted on 09/20/2011 2:45:57 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

It seems like they are really trying to make friends with the Supreme Court (SAR off) after Mr. obama’s remarks at the State of the Union campaign speech.

Go dems, do it some more!


7 posted on 09/20/2011 2:46:53 PM PDT by Crazy ole coot (obama was born a brit and is not a Natural Born Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

When does Conyers’ wife get out of prison???


8 posted on 09/20/2011 2:51:28 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

the proposal would amend the Constitution to empower Congress and the states to limit corporate spending on political activities.


amend the constituion?


9 posted on 09/20/2011 2:51:50 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( getting closer to the truth.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot
The more the better. Kennedy, the justice who will probably cast the deciding vote on the constitutionality of Obamacare, wrote the Citizens United decision. Any DemonRat attack on him is a good thing, just to get him antgagonized and wanting to stick it to the Illegal through Obamacare.
10 posted on 09/20/2011 2:54:14 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

LOL!

Probably not soon enough to see the demise of this bill.


11 posted on 09/20/2011 2:54:26 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

This is a lead shirt in the life jacket locker.


12 posted on 09/20/2011 3:01:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Sarah Palin - 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
OK....maximum contribution by any individual, corporation, or Union is limited to $2300, period.

NO BUNDLING, no combined contributors into a single lump (Union Dues), etc.

Let's let individuals decide if they want to fund this nonsense called "government".

13 posted on 09/20/2011 3:01:44 PM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Red meat for the communist base. You know how our leadership thinks that we are all hayseed dumb... well sir... the dim leadership KNOWS that their communist base is 100% dumb to the power of 10! The difference between how we perceive the political activism in an election cycle and they perceive it... is we know our side is FOS but the reds actually believe everything conyers and his ilk say.

LLS

14 posted on 09/20/2011 3:45:09 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Is the person that you support a Crony Capitalist... A.K.A. CRAPITALIST?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the proposal would amend the Constitution to empower Congress and the states to limit corporate spending on political activities.

Ya know, if ALL of the laws on the books could be enforced, we would be the most oppressed nation on earth!! It's past time to repeal the 17th Amendment (that fundamentally altered the US from a Representative Republic to a democracy) and place limits on the number of bills and laws that Congress could pass. Anything not granted to the Congress by the Constituion automatically goes to the states to resolve.

It's just unfortunate that there isn't a politician living with the courage and intestinal fortitude to actually make this happen. Me and a few other conservative idealogues will just have to watch as our once great nation is deconstructed bit by bit by leftists who hate America and love the third world lifestayle.

15 posted on 09/20/2011 4:03:24 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Go green - recycle Congress in 2012!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
Yeah, the article speaks of amending the Constitution. Fat chance of that.

Has the text of the proposed constitutional amendment been published? Or is this another of those "pass this thing before we release the text" deals?
16 posted on 09/20/2011 4:16:08 PM PDT by DanMiller (Dan Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

If an entity is good enough to tax, then it is good enough to have free speech.


17 posted on 09/20/2011 4:25:28 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
"OK....maximum contribution by any individual, corporation, or Union is limited to $2300, period."

That sounds good to me. Equal Limits for all entities.
18 posted on 09/20/2011 5:21:28 PM PDT by EasySt (2012... Sometimes you have to flush twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
"It's just unfortunate that there isn't a politician living with the courage and intestinal fortitude to actually make this happen."

I hate to point this out here on FR, but the only one I hear saying those kinds of things (Repeal the 17th, etc) is Ron Paul.

Why is it that the "kooks" are the only ones saying such things about what the real limits of the Federal Government are supposed to be?

Or are they carefully and relentlessly made to look like kooks, precisely because they say such things?
19 posted on 09/20/2011 5:30:21 PM PDT by EasySt (2012... Sometimes you have to flush twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EasySt

(Or even worse, we’ve strayed so far from the Constitution, that actually following its original intent these days, really does seem “kooky”...)


20 posted on 09/20/2011 5:36:07 PM PDT by EasySt (2012... Sometimes you have to flush twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EasySt

The problem with Ron Paul is that he simply lacks the charisma or dynamics to emerge from the pack as a leader. In many respects, he is like Newt. Newt is a smart guy and a great policy wonk, but he just lacks the personality he needs to be POTUS. Paul is in pretty much the same boat.

I want to see the 17th repealed because it makes sense and will go a long way toward restoring us to being a representative republic instead of a democracy.


21 posted on 09/21/2011 5:56:29 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Go green - recycle Congress in 2012!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

If they can’t contribute, then they can’t be taxed.
That’s what our nation was birthed on - “no taxation without representation”.

So, Conyers wants to heavily tax corps, and give them no voice,

and give unions voice without taxation.


22 posted on 09/21/2011 6:05:05 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson