Citizens United v. FEC

Whether Supporting Incumbents or Challengers, Super PACs Put Big Money in Charge

Proponents of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling have argued that Super PACs help shake up the almost-guaranteed reelection prospects for congressional incumbents, going so far as to cast Super PACS as a way to bring about a new era of good government. But the very nature of the Super PAC – a mechanism that enables wealthy individuals and special interests to secretly funnel money through corporate political donations in support of their favored candidates – practically invites corruption.

From the New York Times:

Incumbents in Congress usually have a huge fund-raising advantage over challengers. Big donors correctly assume they will probably be in office for years, and curry favor with contributions that only wealthy challengers can match. So why not try to neutralize this advantage by spending money on behalf of challengers? …

But the method they are using — a super PAC that can collect and spend unlimited amounts of money — is the opposite of good government, and demonstrates the inherent danger in allowing big money to steer election results. The handful of donors say their motives are pure, but the public has no way of knowing what their long-term goals are, or whether they have personal interests in the races they have chosen.

The electoral advantages incumbents enjoy is indeed a problem, but not one that is caused or solved by Citizens United. Super PAC funds are comprised not by grassroots donations but by large contributions from a few wealthy donors. Using these resources to usher challengers into office perpetuates the fundamentally anti-democratic influence of special interests of money in our elections.

Regardless of whether wealthy special interests seek to reelect reliable incumbents or replace them with sympathetic challengers, the end result is that the most influential voice in our elections is not that of the American people. We need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to level the playing field for everyone – wealthy or otherwise.

PFAW

Super-PAC Tuesday

Ten states are holding primaries and caucuses today, earning March 6th the title of “Super Tuesday.” Participants will show up, cast their vote, and hopefully feel good for participating in the democratic process and fulfilling their civic duty.

But thanks to Citizens United, and the Super PACs that flawed decision gave rise to, the voters are not the stars of this show. An outpouring of cash from a few extremely wealthy donors has dramatically altered the campaign landscape, altering the balance of influence from individual donors and grassroots donors to rich special interests and corporations.

As illustrated above by Dave Granlund, tonight’s contests should really be called Super-PAC Tuesday. NPR reports that in the ten states up for grabs, Super PACs have spent a whopping $12 million for ads:

Leading the way is Restore Our Future, the superPAC that backs former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. According to Federal Election Commission numbers, Restore Our Future has spent $6.9 million on the Super Tuesday states.

"The groups have clearly taken the lead in advertising for the whole Republican primary. They're very much taking the lead in advertising for Super Tuesday. It's mostly the 'Restore Our Future show,' followed by Winning Our Future, which is the Gingrich group, and Red, White and Blue, which is the Santorum group," says Ken Goldstein, who tracks political ad spending for Kantar Media CMAG.

Red, White and Blue has spent some $1.3 million on Super Tuesday, and has been running an ad in Ohio that goes after Romney for his alleged similarities to the man all Republicans want to defeat in November: President Obama.

These ads supposedly (and unconvincingly) act independently from a candidate’s official campaign, meaning that candidates are unaccountable for their content. But as Katrina vanden Huevel points out in today’s Washington Post, these superPACs reach “barely a legal fiction,” populated as they are with former staff and fundraisers for the candidates they “independently” support.  And this is in addition to the spending by 501 c-4 organizations the sources for which do not even have to be disclosed.

This is not what democracy looks like. We have to end unfettered political spending in our elections system – and solutions like the DISCLOSE Act and a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United are gaining steam. $12 million worth of ads on Super-PAC Tuesday alone should convince everyone that enough is enough.

PFAW

Unlimited Donations Toward an Extreme Agenda

Talk about Citizens United usually revolves around the anti-democratic fact that corporations and wealthy donors are now free to give unlimited amounts to oppose or support candidates of their choice. While it’s obvious that those wealthy individuals seeking to buy an election are likely to hold significant influence over their candidate of choice, it’s important to remember that these donors aren’t just hoping to elect the candidate they would most like to have a beer with – they are trying to buy the opportunity to enact a far-reaching policy agenda.

An editorial in today’s New York Times explores the policy interests of some of the approximately two-dozen individuals, couples and companies who have given 80 percent of the money collected by Super PACs – a whopping $54 million. These people want more than just President Obama’s defeat; an extreme Right-Wing policy agenda is part of the package.

Harold Simmons, a billionaire corporate raider, has given $1 million to Mr. Gingrich’s political action committee, $1.1 million to Rick Perry’s PAC, $100,000 to Mitt Romney’s PAC, and $10 million to American Crossroads, the super PAC advised by Karl Rove that is supporting many Republican candidates. Mr. Simmons’s companies make metals, paints and chemicals, among other things, and have gotten into trouble over lead and uranium emissions from previous decades. He also runs a radioactive waste dump in Texas that has clashed with environmental regulators over its proximity to a nearby aquifer. He controls Waste Control Specialists, which has contracts to clean up federal hazardous waste sites, including emissions from other companies he controls.

Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and an outspoken libertarian, gave $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s PAC. In 2009, he wrote that the 1920s were the last decade when one could be optimistic about American politics, lamenting the subsequent rise of the welfare state that he blamed in part on giving women the right to vote.

Foster Friess, who gave $1 million to Rick Santorum’s Red White and Blue PAC, is a mutual fund manager who recently declared that aspirin used to be an effective contraceptive when women put it between their knees. He is a former president of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club of some of the country’s most powerful conservatives, which opposes unions, same-sex marriage and government regulation.

If roughly 24 people can use their gigantic bank accounts to pursue an agenda like this, it’s no wonder that the vast majority of Americans believe the pervasive influence of money in politics –exasperated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United – is not working in the people’s best interest.

PFAW Foundation

On-Air Laughs, But Citizens United Not So Funny

Citizens United got a bit of airtime on Comedy Central this week, but that doesn’t mean that Supreme Court’s pro-plutocracy decision is a laughing matter.

On Tuesday, former Senator Russ Feingold joined Jon Stewart on the Daily Show to discuss the state of campaign finance, which is, essentially, that we are experiencing the “worst corruption in 100 years.” Citizens United, Feingold claims, “destroyed the entire foundation” of the McCain-Feingold Act, which was supposed to prevent corporations from using their treasuries to directly influence elections.

 

 

“If [money] causes corruption or the appearance of corruption, you can regulate it. That’s why you have limits on campaign contributions under federal law. The problem is Citizens United. It overturned a law from 1907 that nobody ever questioned and another law from 1947, so basically the Supreme Court just made it up. It’s one of the worst decisions in the history of the country. It’s the only decision I can remember that the average citizen knows about. They know something is wrong and this whole thing is going to collapse.”

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi went on the Colbert Report the next day to advocate for solutions to mitigate some of the effects of Citizens United: passing the DISCLOSE Act and eventually amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United.

“If we want to cancel elections and just have the wealthiest people in America, and you know what their names are, give tens of millions of dollars, we can just ask them, who do they want to be President, who do they want to run Congress, who do they want to be governors….our Founders intended that the people decide.”

Although Colbert believes that this would be a “polite” course of action, Pelosi counters that it would not be very democratic. The people have a right to know how corporations are spending on our elections, and to reject that influence. She offers a prescription:

“Disclose. Stand by your ad. Win the election, reform the system, overturn the Supreme Court decision by amending the Constitution, and give the vote, the voice, and the power to the people.”

 

PFAW

A Chance to Overrule Citizens United?

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer suggest that Citizens United should be revisited via a case from Montana, based on the past two years' experience.
PFAW Foundation

DISCLOSE Act, Take 2

Last week, Congressman Chris Van Hollen introduced the DISCLOSE 2012 Act in an effort to bring transparency and accountability to our political system by requiring corporations to disclose their spending on elections. Sound familiar? That’s because the DISCLOSE Act was originally introduced in 2010, and was blocked by Senate Republicans.

The Supreme Court, in its infamous Citizens United decision, put our democracy up for sale by opening the floodgates to unlimited, unregulated and undisclosed corporate spending on political contributions. However, they may have believed that disclosure would be part of the deal: Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the decision, said that “The First Amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” In fact, eight of the nine Justices in that decision upheld disclosure requirements, recognizing their critical importance.

In an article published last year in the New Republic, Norman Ornstein recounts how at a time in the not-too-distant past, GOP leaders supported disclosure as well. In the words of Senator Mitch McConnell, “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?” Rep. John Boehner expressed similar sentiments a few years later, saying, “I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

In the post-Citizens United era, the GOP’s tune has changed. Senator McConnell now views disclosure as “a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress,” and rallied his fellow Senate Republicans to block the bill.

Are we headed for a bit of déjà vu with DISCLOSE 2012? Perhaps, but advocates of an open and accountable democracy have the American people – 92% believe that corporations wield undue influence in our elections – on their side. While we work toward a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and restore the balance of power in our democracy to the people, the DISCLOSE 2012 Act is a step in the right direction. The GOP should get on board.

PFAW

50 Organizations Present Letter to Congress Requesting Hearings on Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

CONTACT: Justin Greenberg, PFAW at (202) 467-4999 / media@pfaw.org or Dorry Samuels, Public Citizen at (202) 588-7742 / dsamuels@citizen.org

WASHINGTON – Reflecting the millions of Americans concerned about the undue influence wielded by corporations and wealthy special interests in our democracy, 50 organizations have jointly signed and presented a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees requesting hearings to explore constitutional remedies to overturn the Supreme Court’s flawed decision in Citizens United v. FEC and related cases. This letter follows over 350 events in 49 states – from teach-ins to courthouse protests – organized by many of signing groups to call attention to the negative effects of Citizens United on the second anniversary of the decision.

“In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations are guaranteed the same free speech rights as real people to influence elections, thereby ruling that governmental restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections are invalid and unconstitutional,” the letter reads. While disclosure legislation may mitigate some of the damage of this decision, “Only amending the Constitution can fully secure the American people’s authority to regulate corporate influence in our elections and restore our democracy.”

“Americans have become increasingly distressed at the toxic effects of unrestrained corporate and special interest money that is influencing our political system,” and are demanding action from our elected representatives. So far in the 112th Congress, 13 constitutional amendment resolutions have been introduced, and dozens more have been passed at the state and local level. “As activists have mobilized and protested across the country,” the letter states, “it is time for Congress to explore in earnest the range of resolutions that have been introduced to undo the harmful effects of the Court’s decision,” and advance “the critical debate about how the Constitution should be amended to return our democracy to the people.”

Signatories to the letter include People For the American Way, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, MoveOn.org, Free Speech For People, Move to Amend, Public Campaign, Greenpeace and African American Ministers In Action. Please follow the links to the full letters to the House and Senate.

###

Hold House hearings on amending the Constitution to remedy Citizens United

February 14, 2012

The Honorable Lamar Smith, Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Ranking Member
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Trent Franks, Chairman
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
H2-362 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairmen Smith and Franks and Ranking Members Conyers and Nadler:

We are writing to request that the House Judiciary Committee hold hearings this year on the need to amend the Constitution to remedy the damage done to our nation by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and related cases. That decision, along with prior and subsequent cases, have unleashed a flood of corporate and special interest money that threatens to undermine the integrity of our elections and our democracy.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations are guaranteed the same free speech rights as real people to influence elections, thereby ruling that governmental restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections are invalid and unconstitutional. As to that astounding principle, Justice Stevens noted in his dissent that the framers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”

Congress may pass legislation to try to mitigate the effects of this decision, for example to provide for public disclosure of election expenditures. But such measures, while beneficial, cannot undo the harm done by the Court in Citizens United v. FEC. Only amending the Constitution can fully secure the American people’s authority to regulate corporate influence in our elections and restore our democracy.

So far in the 112th Congress, there have been 13 constitutional amendment resolutions about this issue introduced in the House and Senate. While these resolutions vary in scope and approach, they all were introduced because of the growing realization that the problems created by Citizens United and related decisions are so immense and so fundamental that they can only be addressed through constitutional remedies.

Americans have become increasingly distressed at the toxic effects of unrestrained corporate and special interest money that is influencing our political system. Fully 92% of the American people believe that the extent of corporate influence on our political system is a problem. Just one month after the Citizens United decision, polling revealed that eighty percent of Americans opposed the ruling.

As activists have mobilized and protested across the country on the occasion of the second anniversary of the Court’s decision, and as city and county councils and state legislatures take up and pass resolutions calling for amending the Constitution to reverse Citizens United, it is time for Congress to explore in earnest the range of resolutions that have been introduced to undo the harmful effects of the Court’s decision.

We urge you to use this session of the 112th Congress to advance the very healthy and critical debate about how the Constitution should be amended to return our democracy to the people.

Sincerely,

350.org
A New Way Forward
African American Ministers in Action
Alliance for Democracy
Americans for Democratic Action
Backbone Campaign
Campaign for America's Future
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
CivicSponsor
Codepink
Coffee Party
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Consumer Action
Consumer Watchdog
Democrats.com
Earthworks
East Bay Citizens for Action
Ethical Markets
Food Empowerment Project
Free Speech for People
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Indiana Alliance for Democracy
Institute for Policy Studies - Global Economy Project
International Forum on Globalization
Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution
Main Street Alliance
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Move to Amend
MoveOn
National Education Association
Oil Change International
People For the American Way
Pesticide Action Network North America
Public Campaign
Public Citizen
Rebuild the Dream
Roots Action
Story of Stuff
Sum of Us
The Other 98%
U.S. PIRG
United Republic
We the People Campaign
Where's Our Money
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Wolf PAC
Working Families Win

cc: House Judiciary Committee, Members

Hold Senate hearings on amending the Constitution to remedy Citizens United

February 14, 2012

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman
The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Richard Durbin, Chairman
The Honorable Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairmen Leahy and Durbin and Ranking Members Grassley and Graham:

We are writing to request that the Senate Judiciary Committee hold hearings this year on the need to amend the Constitution to remedy the damage done to our nation by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and related cases. That decision, along with prior and subsequent cases, have unleashed a flood of corporate and special interest money that threatens to undermine the integrity of our elections and our democracy.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations are guaranteed the same free speech rights as real people to influence elections, thereby ruling that governmental restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections are invalid and unconstitutional. As to that astounding principle, Justice Stevens noted in his dissent that the framers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”

Congress may pass legislation to try to mitigate the effects of this decision, for example to provide for public disclosure of election expenditures. But such measures, while beneficial, cannot undo the harm done by the Court in Citizens United v. FEC. Only amending the Constitution can fully secure the American people’s authority to regulate corporate influence in our elections and restore our democracy.

So far in the 112th Congress, there have been 13 constitutional amendment resolutions about this issue introduced in the House and Senate. While these resolutions vary in scope and approach, they all were introduced because of the growing realization that the problems created by Citizens United and related decisions are so immense and so fundamental that they can only be addressed through constitutional remedies.

Americans have become increasingly distressed at the toxic effects of unrestrained corporate and special interest money that is influencing our political system. Fully 92% of the American people believe that the extent of corporate influence on our political system is a problem. Just one month after the Citizens United decision, polling revealed that eighty percent of Americans opposed the ruling.

As activists have mobilized and protested across the country on the occasion of the second anniversary of the Court’s decision, and as city and county councils and state legislatures take up and pass resolutions calling for amending the Constitution to reverse Citizens United, it is time for Congress to explore in earnest the range of resolutions that have been introduced to undo the harmful effects of the Court’s decision.

We urge you to use this session of the 112th Congress to advance the very healthy and critical debate about how the Constitution should be amended to return our democracy to the people.

Sincerely,

350.org
A New Way Forward
African American Ministers in Action
Alliance for Democracy
Americans for Democratic Action
Backbone Campaign
Campaign for America's Future
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
CivicSponsor
Codepink
Coffee Party
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Consumer Action
Consumer Watchdog
Democrats.com
Earthworks
East Bay Citizens for Action
Ethical Markets
Food Empowerment Project
Free Speech for People
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Indiana Alliance for Democracy
Institute for Policy Studies - Global Economy Project
International Forum on Globalization
Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution
Main Street Alliance
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Move to Amend
MoveOn
National Education Association
Oil Change International
People For the American Way
Pesticide Action Network North America
Public Campaign
Public Citizen
Rebuild the Dream
Roots Action
Story of Stuff
Sum of Us
The Other 98%
U.S. PIRG
United Republic
We the People Campaign
Where's Our Money
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Wolf PAC
Working Families Win

cc: Senate Judiciary Committee, Members

President Obama Supports Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Yesterday, President Obama announced his support of a constitutional amendment to reign in special interest money in elections. With his support the growing movement pushing to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United is gaining even more momentum. The diverse coalition comprised of millions of Americans, small business owners and organizations concerned about the undue influence that corporations wield in our democracy has been raising its voice, and now our elected representatives in city halls and state legislatures, in Congress and even the White House are listening and taking action.

The Supreme Court’s flawed decision that opened our electoral system to unlimited, undisclosed and unregulated corporate spending on our elections needs to be undone. As the president’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, noted in a blog post, President Obama has always opposed the Citizens United decision and views a constitutional amendment as a potential solution:

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

Marge Baker, Executive Vice President at People For the American Way, declares that a constitutional amendment is in fact, necessary, in a statement released to the press this morning:

Citizens United opened the floodgates to a wave of corporate and special interest money in our elections. Since then, Americans from across the political spectrum have joined together to support amending the Constitution to reverse the damage done by the Supreme Court and limit corporate and special interest influence in our democracy. As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, there are problems with our political system, but few people would argue that a shortage of money is one of them.

Amending the Constitution is the only way to completely overturn the Court’s decision, and President Obama should be applauded for lending his support to the movement to restore democracy to the people. Americans of all parties and ideologies support amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and related cases.

This is a movement moment. Americans are sick and tired of government that puts the interests of the wealthy above the needs of ordinary people. Momentum for a constitutional amendment is growing every day.

 

PFAW

President Obama Supports Consitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Yesterday, President Obama announced his support of a constitutional amendment to reign in special interest money in elections. With his support the growing movement pushing to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United is gaining even more momentum. The diverse coalition comprised of millions of Americans, small business owners and organizations concerned about the undue influence that corporations wield in our democracy has been raising its voice, and now our elected representatives in city halls and state legislatures, in Congress and even the White House are listening and taking action.

The Supreme Court’s flawed decision that opened our electoral system to unlimited, undisclosed and unregulated corporate spending on our elections needs to be undone. As the president’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, noted in a blog post, President Obama has always opposed the Citizens United decision and views a constitutional amendment as a potential solution:

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

Marge Baker, Executive Vice President at People For the American Way, declares that a constitutional amendment is in fact, necessary, in a statement released to the press this morning:

Citizens United opened the floodgates to a wave of corporate and special interest money in our elections. Since then, Americans from across the political spectrum have joined together to support amending the Constitution to reverse the damage done by the Supreme Court and limit corporate and special interest influence in our democracy. As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, there are problems with our political system, but few people would argue that a shortage of money is one of them.

Amending the Constitution is the only way to completely overturn the Court’s decision, and President Obama should be applauded for lending his support to the movement to restore democracy to the people. Americans of all parties and ideologies support amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and related cases.

This is a movement moment. Americans are sick and tired of government that puts the interests of the wealthy above the needs of ordinary people. Momentum for a constitutional amendment is growing every day.

 

PFAW

PFAW Applauds Obama's Endorsement of Constitutional Amendment

People For the American Way today applauded President Obama for his support for amending the Constitution to repair the damage done by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and stop unlimited corporate spending to influence elections.

PFAW Panel: Constitutional Remedies to Overturn Citizens United

PFAW is hosting a panel on Capitol Hill with members of Congress and state and local lawmakers to showcase the rapidly growing movement across the country to address the threat to our democracy from unrestrained corporate spending to influence our elections, made possible by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

A Movement Moment: Growing Support for Overturning Citizens United

Over 60 organizations have joined United For the People, a grassroots movement to overturn Citizens United v. FEC

Over 60 Organizations Join United For the People

PFAW Praises Yarmuth-Jones Amendment to Protect Democratic Principles

Today, Congressmen John Yarmuth (D-KY) and Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced a constitutional amendment to restore fairness to our electoral system. The resolution addresses harm caused by the Supreme Court’s flawed decision in Citizens United by declaring that spending on elections does not qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, giving Congress the authority to create a public financing system as the sole source of funding for federal elections and designating a national holiday for the purpose of voting.

PFAW Praises Ellison Amendment to Reverse Citizens United

Representative Keith Ellison (MN-5) introduced the “Get Corporate Money Out of Politics Amendment” today, a constitutional amendment that would empower Congress to regulate corporate influence in elections

PFAW Praises Ellison Amendment to Reverse Citizens United

PFAW Praises Ellison Amendment to Reverse Citizens United

Representative Keith Ellison (MN-5) introduced the “Get Corporate Money Out of Politics Amendment” today, a constitutional amendment that would empower Congress to regulate corporate influence in elections. The amendment would reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v.

PFAW Applauds House Introduction of Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Citizens United

Rep. Betty Sutton, Democrat of Ohio, joined by Reps. Martin Heinrich, Chellie Pingree, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jim McDermott, introduced yesterday a constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 86) to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United v. FEC

PFAW Commends Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Citizens United

To restore the ability of Congress and the states to regulate corporate influence in elections, Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) , along with Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have introduced a constitutional amendment that would reverse the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The ruling, which granted corporations the same Free Speech rights as people to spend money in support of or against candidates for office, has led to an unprecedented flood of corporate money in elections across the United States, often under the cover of anonymity.

Marge Baker, Executive Vice President at People For the American Way, issued the following statement:

“In Citizens United, the Supreme Court put our democracy up for sale, and as a result, a constitutional amendment is the only way to completely stop the flood of special interest spending in our election system. I commend Senators Udall, Bennet, Harkin and the other supporters for taking this step toward bringing integrity and transparency back to the electoral process. The American people – not deep pocketed corporations – should be the loudest voice when we choose our leaders.”

Groups supporting a constitutional amendment to reverse the damage caused by Citizens United have collected over 750,000 signatures. You can sign People For the American Way’s petition asking congressional leaders to ensure that the government has the authority to limit corporate influence in elections here.

###

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious