Fukk that.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/02/358694/senators-introduce-citizens-united-amendment/

Senators Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United

By Zaid Jilani on Nov 2, 2011 at 9:50 am


One of the overarching themes of the 99 Percent Movement is that our democracy is too corrupted by corporate special interests. This corruption was worsened last year by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed for huge new unregulated flows of corporate political spending.

Yesterday, six Democratic senators — Tom Udall (NM), Michael Bennett (CO), Tom Harkin (IA), Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Jeff Merkely (OR) — introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the Citizens United case and restore the ability of Congress to properly regulate the campaign finance system.

The amendment as filed resolves that both Congress and individual states shall have the power to regulate both the amount of contributions made directly to candidates for elected office and “the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”

“By limiting the influence of big money in politics, elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets,” said Harkin of the amendment. “We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy. This amendment goes to the heart of that effort.”

Passing this amendment or any other amendment to the Constitution is an arduous process. There are two ways to propose a constitutional amendment. Either two-thirds of Congress can agree to an amendment or there can be a constitutional amendment called by two-thirds of state legislatures (this path has never been taken). In order to ratify an amendment, three-quarters of state legislatures must agree or three-quarters of states must have individual constitutional conventions that agree.

*********************************

Any of our representatives who vote against this should be turned out of office on their ears...

Fish on...

Todd

I'm all for it and wonder why Murry and Cantwell aren't co-sponsoring, but this part - "restore the ability of Congress to properly regulate the campaign finance system. " - doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Are corporations people?
Not until Texas executes one of them.

Here's the proposed text, at least what I've got...

"No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. United States citizens shall be free to contribute no more than the equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate during any election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be part of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures, so long as such limits are content and viewpoint neutral. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

Note that it bans contributions from all "non-citizens", not just corporations...

Fish on...

Todd

Hank, Did you forget to mention unions, or do you need a knee replacment from all that jerking?

[censored] NO!


Fishy

I'm far from a Constitutional scholar but I'm still stunned that SCOTUS granted individual rights to corporations?? Seems like one of those self evident truths thingys. So I wish them luck and hope this gets legs as it's the right thing to do!!!

And while we are at it lets add a few more

1) English is the official language of the US Gov. The only exception would be defendents in a criminal case can have an interpeter.

2) US Citizenship is based on your fathers citizenship not where you're born.

and

3) Individual rights protected under the US Constitution is for ah let me think..........................individuals

Good point...........

I was thinking of Germany's law which is something like that. I guess there would need to be a trickle down system 2.1 And if the father is unknown then mothers citizenship status

I've already acknowledged I'm not a constitutinal scholar but I think you get where I'm heading.

AM----There are people that are natural born citizens that I wish we could revoke their citizenship. rofl


Geez none of those people could possibly be on PP.


Fishy

I don't want all the people that disagree with me to leave...I just want all the idiots to leave...it's an unfortunate coincidence that they are often the same people.



Fish on...

Todd

And...if the "nationality of the father" is the measuring stick the DoD better hand out a ton of condoms to all of our service men overseas, or we'll be flooded by all their dalliances...

Fish on...

Todd

San Francisco is much closer.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, you could all live in the radiated induced stupor that seems to prevent cognitive thinking right there with Hank.


Fishy

Hank---I'll go along with the "prevent cognitive thinking" part.



You don't need to keep proving it so substantively.


Fishy