More

Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Capitol

First Posted: 01/17/12 03:23 PM ET Updated: 01/17/12 05:52 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- What do you do when people are growing increasingly angry about the influence of money on the political system -- but that very same political system is too co-opted to care?

Common Cause on Tuesday announced an attempt to put a measure on the ballot in all 50 states that would allow voters to constructively express that anger -- and forcefully express their view that unlimited spending is hijacking our democracy.

"In the spirit of Occupy, we are creating the tools for as close to a national referendum as we can," said Bob Edgar, president of the nonpartisan government watchdog group.

"The potential for corruption and scandal is now the worst it's been since Watergate and Nixon's bag men," said Robert Reich, who chairs Common Cause's board. "All this is just going to get worse unless people do something dramatically to stop it."

With unlimited individual and corporate funds already rocking the political world -- as unaccountable millions pour into the GOP primaries -- critics have focused their ire on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which made it all possible.

Citizens United was the most momentous of a series of Supreme Court decisions that blew an enormous hole through the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms. (Would you prefer that Stephen Colbert explained all this to you? Then see our five-part series.)

Citing its reading of the Constitution, the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled that corporations have the same rights to political speech as people, and that there could be no limits to independent political spending.

One way to overrule Citizens United, therefore -- barring a new precedent from a different Supreme Court -- is to amend the Constitution.

The only process that's ever been used successfully to amend the Constitution is for an amendment to pass the House and Senate by a two-thirds majority, then win approval from the states. (The second method involves the states calling for a Constitutional Convention, but that has never happened.)

So what Common Cause is proposing is not an actual referendum, but to find some way to begin pressuring Congress to act -- and give voters some way to vent in November 2012. That would generally involve putting a measure called a "voter instruction" on the ballot in the states where that's possible, either by voter initiative or action by the state legislature.

The instructions would demand that Congress adopt a constitutional amendment countermanding the two basic assertions of the Court in Citizens United. And while such an instruction wouldn't be binding, the theory is that it would hard to ignore if it came from enough states.

"Reform is not going to come from inside, because insiders all benefit from the current system," Reich said. "It's our view that it will take a constitutional amendment to put our democracy back on track."

Giving voters the "concrete tools they need to force the issue into the 2012 election" is key, Reich said. "We think this strategy has the potential to reengage voters who are fed up with the political system."

Common Cause sees getting Citizens United overturned as essential. "It is impossible to make progress on any major issues," Edgar said, "unless the people take back politics from the moneyed interests."

The group's new website, Amend2012.org, launches on Wednesday.

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

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter or on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- What do you do when people are growing increasingly angry about the influence of money on the political system -- but that very same political system is too co-opted to care? Common ...
WASHINGTON -- What do you do when people are growing increasingly angry about the influence of money on the political system -- but that very same political system is too co-opted to care? Common ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 600
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
12:25 AM on 01/30/2012
Both parties are out of control with PAC money, and no matter how qualified a person may be to run for president, the money man will win out. This is counter productive to America's best interest.
One of the entities, are the banks, please watch this video by Bill Moyer - http://billmoyers.com/
Well worth the time and effort to learn what has happened to us, and is still happening. Yes there does need to be some government regulation...
03:44 PM on 01/21/2012
mighty effort.. but once it's gone it's gone.. I hope i'm wrong, but i feel there is no one left who cares other than a fringe lunatic or two.l
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StCyrlyMe2
02:02 AM on 01/19/2012
Seems we will never get our politicians to do it I think it's a wonderful Idea we put this measure on the ballots in all 50 States an I bet it would pass in all of them Polls don's say enough or reach enough people to say what 300Million of us think about this dirty deed, don to us by the equally corrupt Supreme Court, also bought an paid for They know this is wrong but they don't care because they been well paid not to
photo
Lancer 101
Ripe and ready to rebel.
01:01 AM on 01/19/2012
The Supreme Court Justices seemingly are untouchable for ethics violations once they are in. With such power, they hold little accountable to the American public, and seem to care less about public opinion. In essence, corporations have the same rights to speech as people. So now corporations are people - next they'll be given the right to vote.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
08:45 PM on 01/18/2012
I agree with the measure. I believe they should also consider placing a similar measure on the ballot for removing supreme court justices for unethical ir inappropriate behavior since a glaring hole currently exists in the constitution on that matter.
01:36 PM on 01/18/2012
Not only does this need to be done, it's time to get rid of the electoral college. Even the primary sytem is unfair! why should the selection of partisan candidates for presidnet be left to Iowa,New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and then the so-called super Tuesday states? Want to make the primary sytem fair? have it in ALL 50 States and DC on the same day!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
08:57 PM on 01/18/2012
Worse yet, legislatures all across the country are adopting legislation - if they haven't already - to require that the legislatures pick the electoral delegates rather than selecting the delegates according to the popular vote because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR A POPULAR VOTE. The current attempts at redistricting and voter disinfranchisment in many states is for the solely to redirect ballot counts and influence congressional district composition (which more and more are being cherry-picked by the governors and legislatures) to support their political ideology objectives. These processes are shrouded behind a cloak of legitimacy when they are nothing more that gerrymandering under cover of law.
12:53 PM on 01/18/2012
I find it hypocritical that Common Cause, a 501 (c)(4) corporation exempt from publicizing its donors, is pushing for accountability and an end to corporate participation in elections. And I find it priceless that Common Cause claims money is not speech while asking for donations on their website.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Common_Cause

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4860191
05:30 PM on 01/18/2012
Money is not speech and Common Cause pointing that out is hypocritical? Maybe they have an unsustainable business model then by your logic Ben?
11:50 AM on 01/18/2012
This is great. I just signed up. This is the focus we need. Simple, easy to understand, powerful. Unless you are part of the 1%, you should sign up. If you feel a need to resist, ask yourself what it is that is stopping you from action? What do you risk by shaking the status quo? At this point, I feel there's a huge risk to the nation by NOT shaking the status quo. I suspect that our political "Leaders" are just waiting for some kind of cover so they can act. What better cover is there than the people of my district want this amendment?
11:48 AM on 01/18/2012
A point that the Amendment promoters should be making: Monopoly.

Long ago we discovered that unregulated "free enterprise" inevitably strikes its natural ceiling of monopoly, which is the death of real free enterprise.

The unregulated "free speech" unleashed by Citizens United has likewise struck the ceiling of monopoly, which again is the death of real free speech.

Free speech must be relative to persons, not to the size of the bank account. When an overwhelmingly huge bank account enables monopolizing the air waves . . . where is free speech? Another specific problem with the Citizenz United concept of "free speech" is that the expending of such "speech" funds does not even represent the voice of stockholders, employees, customers or other constituency of the corporation. It's all a matter of who controls the till.

All healthy organisms, whether a human body or a nation, depend upon vigorous, coordinated regulatory systems.

Tie the noose around Citizens United so we can get back our free speech!
12:51 PM on 01/18/2012
In Iowa Rick Perry spent more than any candidate and only received 10% of the vote. Meanwhile Rick Santorum spent the least and came in second. So much for your evil money argument!

Americans spend more on potato chips each year than national politics.
01:33 PM on 01/18/2012
Rick Perry self-destructed -- over and over again.

Do you know the difference between a candidate's campaign spending, and a super PAC's? Do you understand that one of the problems of this Citizens United business is that unlimited amounts can be spent on campaigns that don't go on the books in the candidate's own name? And that further, with a PAC it is virtually impossible to tell who really is behind the contribution? It is simply money talking, not people.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the radical wrong here is that money can buy a monopoly of our airwaves of speech. That's "evil money" regardless of the outcome of the vote.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
09:01 PM on 01/18/2012
But what Santorum and Perry spent is irrelevant when it comes to the super PAC spending discussion...or it's supposed to be anyway.
11:07 AM on 01/18/2012
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

The following serious abuse was not reported because the 4th estate was the abuser.

Some of our nation’s largest newspapers found themselves in federal court loosing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled newspapers and then pretending to compete with them while rigging prices.

The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers. Richard Nixon and his, Attorney General, were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act.

A newspaper executive wrote a letter to President Nixon as his re-election approached. The letter reminded President Nixon that the nation’s largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.

President Nixon reversed his position and used his political skills to convince congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act.

The newly minted campaign laws should have chastised the 4th estate as well as Nixon? Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted them and created the ‘State Approved Press.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_Preservation_Act_of_1970
11:00 AM on 01/18/2012
Mainstream media are the ultimate super pacs.

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedoms. Congress amended FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads?

The media’s crocodile tears about the evils of money in politics are hypocritical. If media carried political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But corporate media are the recipient of billions of dollars in campaign ads.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and groups!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:50 AM on 01/18/2012
We The People must directly challenge the Supreme Court Judges "themselves" who voted for this demented obvious blatant move to usurp the ACTUAL "people's" power and put our democratic process up for sale to the highest Corporate bidders.
The Supremes WORK for the PEOPLE. It appears they have begun to believe they are DEITY that can't be challenged.

The Citizens United decision reaches SO far into our Democratic process on so many levels it is frightening. It's not just about election campaign "finance" it's about how allowing the wealthiest CORPORATIONS to BUY our elections and put the candidates of their desires into office who will legislate and do THEIR PROFITS bidding only, without any regard to how it affects the PEOPLE, their LIVES, their Health, their environment, their LIVELIHOOD, their CHILDREN or "their" GOVERNMENT.

The consequences are FAR REACHING into the very core of "ALL" each and everyone of OUR "INDIVIDUAL" Constitutional Rights and FREEDOMS.

The wealthiest Corporation haven't even BEGUN to figure out all the ways to take advantage of or ABUSE this decision to THEIR "profits only" benefit.

Corporations have JUST ONE concern...Making PROFIT...for THEIR company(s) "anyway they can" The general welfare of PEOPLE in "this" country, or the Country as a whole means absolutely nothing to Corporations. Nothing. Period. That's not "their" job. That's the US Governments job! But if the Corporations have bought and paid for...OWN... our Government, then our Government's only concern also becomes Corporation's PROFITS only.
11:58 AM on 01/18/2012
I appreciate your desire to "challenge the Supreme Court Judges," but constitutional amendment is far more productive. It will in the same blow both overturn the decision AND be the most effective reprimand to the Justices.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
09:07 PM on 01/18/2012
True, but either way requires a great deal of political will. While the constitutional route can take years, a court challenge could be more expedient should the president have the opportunity to make Supreme Court nominations that are actually confirmed.

The best path forward may be a matter of which opportunity avails itself first.
08:30 AM on 01/18/2012
It should be remembered forever that the Conservative Roberts Court was the cause of this atrocity. He was put on the bench by Bush because of his 100% track record of supporting big business in all cases that came before him. (Obama voted against the Roberts confirmation because of that record). Bush then followed up with Alito - big business and social conservatism.

Any retirement on the Supreme Court will tip the scales completely out of whack if a Republican takes the White House. Talk about turning this country into a theocratic, 1% dominated, socially repressive, backward nation. Be warned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
09:08 PM on 01/18/2012
Well stated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thegreenhornet
civil rights lawyer
07:51 AM on 01/18/2012
I wouldnt trust CC to clean my toilets. This year one of their state directors pocitions became available. Two highly qualified women lawyers applied for the positions. Neither received so much as a courtesy reply. A month or so later CC hired a young woman in her 20's for the position. The two lawyers were in their late 40's and late 50's. Aside from the lack of courtesy it would appear that age may well have been a factor in their choice. The job description that was posted looked like it was written for the two women lawyers. If you are going to hold yourself out as an organization that has as its goal the elimination of correupt politics one would think you would clean your own house first. Shame.
07:50 AM on 01/18/2012
Here is a solution to get money from corporations and millionaires. Max out the tax deduction that any one entity or corporation can put into a PAC or superPAC or candidates coffers at $2500 total for any one political season. If the wealthy can afford to donate to politics without the tax deduction let em at it.My guess is since the deduction is capped a lot of money will stop.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
09:14 PM on 01/18/2012
There may be ways around what you suggest, like spreading it out amongst other corporations and LLCs. While they may formed for one purpose, the would basically exist or the purpose of making the donations - a shell game. And with anonymity it would be difficult to determine if the corporations were domestic or international. But you bring up a great point.