Representatives John Conyers and Donna Edwards today introduced a proposal to amend the Constitution to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan said, "John Conyers and Donna Edwards should be applauded for their response to this decision."
In response to the introduction of legislation by Senator Al Franken that would protect federal, state, and local elections from foreign influence, People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker said, "President Obama was exactly right when he raised the threat of undue foreign influence in US elections following the Supreme Court's irresponsible decision in Citizens United v. FEC."
On Thursday, January 21st, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 766,involving Section 441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), the U.S. Supreme Court made a radical about-face and reversed long-standing precedent that had previously upheld the constitutionality of the federal law that restricts independent corporate spending in elections.
In his annual State of the Union address to Congress, President Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC. People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan applauded the remarks, including the President’s focus on this dangerous ruling.
The Supreme Court upended our political system with its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The decision represents an unprecedented attack on the core democratic values of the Constitution.
In response to today's Supreme Court ruling, which overturned over one hundred years of established law limiting the impact of corporations on elections, People For the American Way called for a constitutional amendment, in addition to legislative remedies, to restore Congress's ability to regulate corporate influence on elections.
In response to today's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, People For the American Way president Michael B. Keegan said, "Today's ruling is yet another example of selective enforcement of constitutional rights by the Roberts Court."