Constitutional Amendment Considered In Response To Supreme Court Decision On Campaign Finance (VIDEO)

President Obama and congressional leaders have vowed to fight back against Thursday morning's Supreme Court decision rolling back restrictions on corporate campaign spending. Among the possible responses under consideration: an amendment to the Constitution.

"It's time to take matters into our own hands to enact a constitutional amendment that once and for all declares that we the people govern our elections and campaigns, not we the corporations," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) in a video produced by a coalition of progressive groups led by Public Citizen and Voter Action.

"This is a ruling that really jeopardizes the rights of ordinary Americans to have a voice in the political process," Edwards told HuffPost.

The suggested amendment would strip a corporation's personhood for First Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court ruled that federal restrictions on corporate money for campaign advertisements violated corporations' free speech rights.

There is little chance that Democrats can amend the Constitution by Election Day this coming November, if ever. Election law professor Rick Hasen called the idea "ridiculous" in a blog post on Thursday.

U.S. PIRG said that it is looking at other, more immediate options with the White House and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Said PIRG's Lisa Gilbert, "We need to do something in time for the 2010 elections."

One proposal is to reenact some corporate spending limits, though it's unclear how such a move could avoid an immediate and successful legal challenge. Another proposal, which Gilbert said has already been drafted, would give corporate shareholders a binding say over a corporation's spending on political advertisements. And several members of Congress have called for renewed support of the Fair Elections Now Act in the wake of the decision. The bill would create a public financing system for campaigns in which small donors' contributions are matched by federal funds.

Donna Edwards, for her part, was skeptical of those options, saying the shareholder proposal would be ineffective because it would apply on a "corporation-by-corporation" basis. Besides, she said, shareholders already have that ability. In her view, the constitutional amendment, which would need to be ratified by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states, is the only way to go.

"I think the Supreme Court has actually left us with no choice," she said. "We hoped the court would have had a little more of a mixed ruling that would have left us with some options."

Most Republicans have praised the ruling, but RNC chairman Michael Steele sounded an uneasy note: "While the Court's recognition that organizations have the freedom to speak on public issues and have their views protected from censorship is fundamental, the Court has now left an imbalance that disadvantages national parties in their ability to support their candidates."

The RNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Democrats' ideas.

The various proposals are still taking shape as policymakers scour the 183 page ruling. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he planned to work with colleagues in the Senate to "explore every option to make sure that we do not turn back the clock on decades of precedent that was designed to prevent big corporation special interests from corrupting the political process."

One Democrat, Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, didn't bother to wait for the court to deliver its widely-expected decision. Last week, the outspoken freshman introduced several bills, including the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, to stymie corporate influence in elections.

The coalition of progressive groups also launched a website (http://freespeechforpeople.org/) to drum up support for reform. Here's the video:

Comments

[Bill Strowder]

02:14 PM on 01/25/2010

WE DON'T NEED AN AMENDMENT FOR THIS ISSUE! The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are clear enough!
It is us voting HUMANS that have the unalienable rights whether we are Black or White, Native of Foreign born, RICH or POOR! We all have ONE VOTE! The voice of the minute man who loses everything on the battlefield to preserve this Republic cannot be less valuable than the fat-ass Wall Street banker who gets rich by speculation on the battle! We just need men of good conscience to interpret the words by their intended and obvious meanings.
Those five rascals just betrayed us. In essence, they just stated for posterity that we, the common people are less valuable to "their" Republic than the "captains of industry" and, therefore, should have a lesser voice in the affairs of government. It is upon this very issue that we trace all Western conflict from the Alaric's sacking of Rome to the American Civil Rights Movement.

[CrittersRTasty]

12:12 AM on 01/30/2010

It's my understanding that wewerent just restricting what "Corporations" can do. If I've read this correctly, the same restrictions applied to PACs- any organized group of individuals (registered voters) acting together, really.
You may not like the NRA, for example, but should it really be unlawful for them to produce a commercial outlining a candidates stance on firearms?

[Gatormouth]

12:03 PM on 01/24/2010

“A Constitutional Convention loaded with corporate partisans would lead to disaster. Call these corporate partisans what they are - agents of foreign power and a clear and present danger to our Republic and it's Constitution. Our courts may have been fatally corrupted by foreign corporate influence and factions dependent upon them. Our leaders will have to correct this problem first - and soon. To delay will be to concede defeat.”

[PDSimic]

04:10 PM on 01/23/2010

This is a huge blow to our already corrupt and lobbyist-infected "democracy", as it effectively gives rich individuals and the corporate elite - CEO's and large share-holders - a free hand to influence the political process in proportion to the money they control. This is a fundamental assault on the very concept of Democracy, making use of this word in connection with our version of it a mockery. It calls for a Constitutional Amendment which would explicitly strip corporations of certain rights that are meant to be fundamental and exclusive rights of the citizens of this country.

Good luck to all!

[luling]

01:55 PM on 01/23/2010

One positive result is that it brings the bribery out into the open; we know who is giving the bribe and who is taking the bribe. The bribery statute can be rewritten.

We can, also, indentify by name the organization that is actually writing the legislation. Lobbyists currently write the language of much legislation. We now know who has hired the lobbyist.

Legislation can be written to have a representative or senator be compeeled to recuse himself from voting on legislation in which he may gain financially [ campaign contributions].

Who is, and who is not, bought and paid for, is a campaign issue.

[dragonlady620]

01:04 PM on 01/23/2010

This is from SourceWatch.org:

http://movetoamend.org/motion-amend

Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.

[jinsei]

01:44 PM on 01/23/2010

Signed and forwarded!

[gypsysailor]

12:58 PM on 01/23/2010

Bah-humbug! A constitutional amendment to prohibit corporate spending, what nonsense. By the time anything with any teeth in it comes around to be voted on by the few people who are willing to still vote the measure will have been watered down worse than the current health care legislation.

[dragonlady620]

02:58 PM on 01/23/2010

Your point is well taken - but I can think of no other way to fight a Supreme Court ruling.
It's time to remind everyone that the government - including the Supreme Court - was designed to serve the PEOPLE - ALL the people, not just the special interests that most corporations represent.

[MadeandBakedintheUSA]

11:06 AM on 01/23/2010

The court issued its ruling just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way

NaH - NO POLITICS HERE!

This is incredible!

SCOTUS searched for this case-

McConnell's hands are all over this

Funny- Only in America

SCOTUS defines a financial/legal term CORPORATION as HUMAN- -

Now can we all file CHAP 11 ?

Why is that reserved for the Mr., Mrs. or Ms. Corporation?

Just like US SENATE defines majority of 100= 60 not 51!

Only in America!

No wonder AMERICA sucks at SCIENCE and MATH!

[dragonlady620]

01:16 PM on 01/23/2010

Spot on. Now We the People should insist that we get the same tax breaks as corporations get.

[PhilipTaylor]

07:32 PM on 01/22/2010

CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FUNDING IS OUT OF CONTROL!

Tax of 90% on all Campaign Advertising!

Use Revenue to institute a Public Campaign Funding System!

[PhilipTaylor]

07:50 PM on 01/22/2010

For 50 years before Reagan we had a 63% to 94% Top Tax Rate on Income over $550,000 (1981 it was $212,000)!

So this kind of tax on Campaign Funding and Advertising fits PERFECTLY WITH OUR TRADITIONS!

[JimiDrama]

06:16 PM on 01/22/2010

It is hilarious to read all the whaling and gnashing of teeth from you libs about this. For decades you have reaped the benefits of activist judges like the 9th Circuit and some on the Supreme Court, who have "progressively" destroyed the moral fabric of this great nation.

[arlandbaee]

08:34 PM on 01/22/2010

Aren't you even wary about what this portends? The conservative value of personal responsibility and free market enterprise may be at risk here.

[dragonlady620]

04:25 PM on 01/23/2010

"Free market" and "personal responsiblity" seems to be an oxymoron.

[dragonlady620]

12:29 PM on 01/23/2010

What has that got to do with this particular ruling? What do you consider "moral" about this decision?
And just how to you think that progressives "destroyed the moral fabric of this great nation?" What do you consider moral about the Republican party (at least in its current incarnation)? And of the Bush administration in particular?

[Vetinari]

01:09 PM on 01/23/2010

moral fabric:

kiII all h0m0sexuals
no divorce rights
ban abortions
Require church attendance every Sunday
Christian holidays only...
and so on...

[ar181]

05:51 PM on 01/22/2010

While I am against this ruling, I understand arguments concerning the potential negative impact of restrictions on the media in general and the implications that restrictions could have on all political information.

I haven't truly thought this through but perhaps limits could be placed on funding for anything that could be considered "intrusive" i.e. purely forms of advertising. If someone wants to seek out political information there would be no restriction on this e.g. If someone really wanted to go to fox news corporation, they could or if they want to read corporate weekly that's up to them. People then get to make a choice about what they digest without particularly powerful voices having the power to drown out others.

In the media currently balance is partly maintained because the market demands this although I would also welcome a return to the fairness doctrine. The line would get a bit blurry when you consider advertising within media organisations and there would need to be a distinction between advertising and reporting/opinion pieces in these organs, however this could be resolved.

Finally campaign advertising to be financed by the public.

[Bill Walker]

06:36 PM on 01/22/2010

Any discussion of an amendment such as mentioned requires that all should be reminded there are two methods whereby an amendment may be proposed. The first by Congress, the second by an Article V Convention. Article V of the Constitution mandates a convention call by Congress when 34 states submit 34 applications for a convention call.

The Congressional Record shows all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V convention call far more than the number required. The texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org.

[Iam12Vote]

04:17 PM on 01/22/2010

The ruling class doesn't like being at a disadvantage.

Even Michael Steele swallowed him gum when he realized that Goldman Sachs could afford to buy an entire election cycle for both sides based solely on the value of it's bonus money.

There's room for some broad agreement on this. GOP leaders are already spinning this into stupid word games. But independent conservatives know that this is the same old BIG GUBMINT GOP that sold them out.

[gekkobear]

03:18 PM on 01/22/2010

"The suggested amendment would strip a corporation's personhood for First Amendment purposes."

Then the U.S. Government starts editing and censoring the NY times... what? It;'s a corporation not an individual so it has no "freedom of the Press" rights.

I like it. Only when the Government can control any press larger than a handpress can we truly be free. For a given value of free...

[Kowboy87]

04:36 PM on 01/22/2010

@gekkobear: If you read the ruling, the Court ruled that a corporation as an individual distinct from its constituent members has the right to free speech protections. So when the NY Times starts writing articles, then we can talk about limiting it's freedom of speech in that manner. As it currently stands, the reporters are the ones writing the articles and they are in fact individuals.

[gekkobear]

06:35 PM on 01/23/2010

Well thank goodness no individuals are writing the ads you're looking to ban; this is done by "the corporation" and not by people at all...

How does that work exactly? How do you produce an advertisement without any people involved?

[dragonlady620]

12:40 PM on 01/23/2010

Corporations control mainstream media and use it to manipulate public opinion. How does that fit in?

[JustJoy7]

01:57 PM on 01/22/2010

While they are at it, there needs to be a few more amendments:

1. No position should be a lifetime appointment. Hear that Supreme Court.
2. Abolish the Senate. There truly is no need for a senate.
3. Require ALL those desiring to run for elected office to take a stringent course on The Constitution AND pass a test on it, take a course in ethics, and take a high level course in finance.

The founding fathers allowed for us to amend the Constitution when things got out of hand.

[jsgaetano]

01:50 PM on 01/22/2010

This will be great.

The GOP will be forced to defend their corporate masters, both because that's what they get paid to do and because they were the driving force behind the SCOTUS's judicial activism.

And, as always, America will see loud and clear that the only protection possible from unchecked corporate rule over America is the Democratic party. The DNC doesn't always succeed, but they are literally the only option.

[leafericson]

01:34 PM on 01/22/2010

Only people who vote should be allowed to contribute money to the political process. Corporations & unions don`t vote so they shouldn`t contribute money