Skip to comments.House Democrats push legislation to overturn Citizens United ruling
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."
Funny how they don’t want to limit spending by unions.
Exactly, they’ve got the union thugs in their pockets but not enough corporations.
F squared C.
Fat f****** chance.
Helloooooooo dim-bulb-crats, we’ve got the house, you SOBs.
There's that funny Democrat math again.
8 years between 2002 and 2010 has become "decades."
Conyers is a really dim bulb and this proves it.
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!
When does Conyers’ wife get out of prison???
the proposal would amend the Constitution to empower Congress and the states to limit corporate spending on political activities.
Probably not soon enough to see the demise of this bill.
This is a lead shirt in the life jacket locker.
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".
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.
If an entity is good enough to tax, then it is good enough to have free speech.
(Or even worse, we’ve strayed so far from the Constitution, that actually following its original intent these days, really does seem “kooky”...)
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.