Posted on 09/09/2014 7:17:36 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn
The Senate on Monday advanced a constitutional amendment meant to reverse two recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending.
Republicans are likely to vote against the amendment when it comes up for a final vote, but by allowing it to proceed, ensured that it will tie up the Senate for most of the week.
More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats in the 79-18 vote advancing the amendment, well over the 60 votes that were needed.
The amendment is almost certain to fail, as it would need to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate, and then would still need to move through the House and be ratified by two-thirds of the states.
"We should have debate on this important amendment," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said before voting for cloture. "The majority should be made to answer why they want to silence critics."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would gladly debate the issue for as long as Republicans require because the amendment is necessary to keep “dark money” out of politics.
“You’re either for campaign spending reform or not,” Reid said ahead of the vote. “This constitutional amendment is what we need to bring sanity back to elections and restore Americans’ confidence in our democracy.”
Monday’s vote means Democrats will have less time to hold other political votes during the two-week session before adjourning for the midterm elections. Reid has said he also wants to hold votes on Democrats political priorities, such as equal pay for women and refinancing student loan rates.
Reid has threatened to keep senators in town over the weekend in order to accomplish all of his legislative goals. But the Senate has only two weeks to pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government funded after Sept. 30 and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Republicans have offered support for the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. FEC. They say campaign spending is a form of free speech, and that the decisions removing certain limits on spending protected First Amendment rights.
The 2010 Citizens United ruling struck down restrictions that had barred corporations and unions from spending money from their general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates. In McCutcheon, the court struck aggregate limits on individual contributions to candidates.
Democratic political groups, such as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), pushed hard for a vote, saying the issue motivates Democrats to go out to the polls.
“Citizens United gives corporate special interests the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who is up for reelection this November. “It’s wrong and I’ve been fighting it since the day the Supreme Court announced its egregious decision.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the vote was a political stunt by Democrats ahead of the midterm elections. McConnell, and most of Senate GOP leadership, voted for the cloture motion.
“It’s painfully clear the majority leader’s priorities have to due with Nov. 4,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “So it’s all politics all the time no matter what.”
The amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would authorize Congress and the states to regulate and limit fundraising and spending on federal candidates.
It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.
Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT), Moran (KS), Boozman (AR), Burr (NC), Coats (IN), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Cornyn (TX), Fischer (NE), Flake (AZ), Heller (NV), Hoeven (ND), Johanns (NE), Kirk (IL), McCain (AZ), McConnell (KY), Rubio (FL), Sessions (AL), Vitter (LA), and Wicker (MS).
Having now made sure their buddy, Dingy Harry, can pass the legislation with a simple majority, these 19 Republican stalwarts can now vote against the bill when it comes up for a vote and then go back and tell the low information Republican voters how they fought "campaign finance reform."
“these 19 Republican stalwarts”
Make that 25.
With Republicans like this, who needs Dims?
Final passage requires 66 votes. Some of them would have to continue voting for it.
We do not need the senate any longer.
It is a collection of scheming enemies, much like the rest of the government.
“can pass the legislation with a simple majority”
Correction 2: since a constitutional amendment, it would need a super majority 67, not 51. Sorry for any confusion.
I am so sick of these quislings playing the sleight of hand on allowing leftist legislation to go forward by voting for cloture, only to later hide behind a “no” vote they know will fail that I didn’t address the necessary substantive vote count properly.
Isn't that 3/4ths of the states?
-PJ
Final passage requires 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the states.
Yes, I see some good senators on the cloture list, but I also notice who is absent, including Toomey (PA), Cruz (TX) and Lee(UT).
I respect their absolute morality views more than I do a political ploy.
Translation: this favors Democrats more than Republicans, so you are insane if you do not vote for it.
It just goes to show that these scoundrels are sensitive to "sanity in elections" and "confidence in democracy".
So liberals are against the first amendment now?
..or is it....
Free speech for me, but not for thee?
Actual passage in the Senate, not just cloture, also requires a 2/3 vote for passage.
Allowing a vote is a good thing, it will show that some senators want a thumb on the scale.
Incumbents of both parties trying to make it more difficult for them to be challenged in future elections. They are trying to save their own a**es.
==
67, they have to round up.
“Incumbents of both parties trying to make it more difficult for them to be challenged in future elections. They are trying to save their own a**es.”
I certainly can’t argue with that.
Thank you for the correction. :) Voting for cloture has one drawback, that I can see. This allows the proposed amendment to be more widely demagogued.
Voting for it before voting against it.
All of New England has a population of 14 million, half that of Texas, yet New England gets ten Senators and Texas gets two.
Unless you LIKE being ruled by Dingy Harry, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy...
The average voter in New England has 12 times as much power in the Senate as a Texas voter. That's a good thing?
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.