House Democrats push legislation to overturn Citizens United ruling

The Hill ^ | September 20, 2011 | Mike Lillis

[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."

[mkmensinger]

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

[jazusamo]

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

[Da Coyote]

F squared C.

Fat f****** chance.

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

[Political Junkie Too]

...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

[jazusamo]

Conyers is a really dim bulb and this proves it.

[Crazy ole coot]

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!

[ridesthemiles]

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

[PeterPrinciple]

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

---

amend the constituion?

[libstripper]

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.

[jazusamo]

LOL!

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

[editor-surveyor]

This is a lead shirt in the life jacket locker.

[traditional1]

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".

[LibLieSlayer]

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

[DustyMoment]

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.

[DanMiller]

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?

[Raider Sam]

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

[EasySt]

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

That sounds good to me. Equal Limits for all entities.

[EasySt]

"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?

[EasySt]

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