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.
“However, I don’t see where the Dims lose politically by having the issue debated. Low/no information voters—despite overwhelming facts to the contrary—think fat cats overwhelmingly back Republicans. So this is a perfect issue for the Dims to seize on to divert attention from immigration, ObummerCare, etc.”
******************************
The Dims are pretty upset. That idiot Sanders is running around claiming that the Republicans are being obstructionist by letting the vote go forward!
They didn’t want to have a debate on this. They wanted it to fail cloture, then they could point to the Republicans and call them obstructionists. Then move on to other stuff (like equal pay and college loans) and do the same thing. None of these are going to pass the House, so there’s no reason to do any of this other than the obstructionist tag.
None of these votes were meant to pass from Reid’s point of view. They just want the political point of calling R’s obstructionists. In fact, he may not even bring up the other things now, as he knows the R’s will vote for cloture.
It was a smart move on the Senate Republicans part, if you just look at it strategically.
Your reading comprehension needs work. This is a Constitutional amendment, which means it can't pass with a simple majority. It can't even pass with the 60 votes usually needed for cloture. It needs 67 votes to pass the Senate.
While I don't often agree with what the GOP Senate leaders do, I agree with their tactic here. One, it forces the Dems to actually publicly argue why they want to restrict free speech and gives the GOP the chance to publicly argue in favor of the 1st Amendment. Two, it ties up the Senate and keeps the Dems from pushing their bill on the minimum wage and such. By the time they get finish debating this bill and it gets voted down, they will barely have enough time to vote for the CR before it is time to adjourn.
Only Senator Palpatine can save us now.
How about just repealing the 17th? Imagine what the Senate would look like today without it. Damn sure wouldn't be in Dem control.
“Your reading comprehension needs work.”
Thanks for the compliment.
I acknowledged the correct vote count needed in post 5.
As for the brilliance of the tactic by Alexander, Graham, McConnell, McCain et al., all I can point to is that Lee and Cruz voted the other way. I agree with Lee and Cruz on this.
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.