Citizens United Amendment Urged By Grassroots, Federal Lawmakers

Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke at an April 18 event highlighting efforts by grassroots organizers to push for an anti-Citizens United amendment.

WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday morning, dozens of activists and more than a dozen members of Congress gathered in a Capitol Visitor Center hearing room to show their support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

While the stage was set with speeches from congressional sponsors of a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision -- including remarks from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- the event focused on people across the country mobilizing in support of an amendment.

"We have developing here a grassroots movement," Udall said.

So far, 20 resolutions calling to overturn Citizens United, which freed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections, have been introduced in state legislatures, with measures passing in New Mexico and Hawaii. A number of cities and towns have passed similar resolutions.

Representing those grassroots efforts, four individuals pushing for support of a constitutional amendment in their own communities spoke at Wednesday's event.

David Marshall of Portland, Maine, noted that he had come to this issue thanks to his constituents. "It was the enthusiasm of my constituents that inspired me as a city councilor to sponsor a resolution urging the Congress to amend the Constitution to end corporate personhood and to overturn Citizens United," Marshall said. On Jan. 18, 2012, Portland passed just such a resolution.

State Rep. Mimi Stewart described how the New Mexico legislature went from voting down an anti-Citizens United resolution in 2011 to voting for a similar resolution in 2012. "What is different?" she asked rhetorically. "The public is starting to get it. The public is behind it." She said people were "calling into legislators who would otherwise not vote for this to get them to understand that their constituents really wanted this."

Activist Georgina Forbes explained how citizens worked to get 66 Vermont towns to adopt resolutions in favor of a constitutional amendment. "In my town of Norwich and in 65 other towns, hundreds of people like me stood at the dump, outside of the post office, in front of the general store and spoke with our neighbors and gathered names on petitions to get this article on the ballot," she said.

State Sen. Jamie Raskin, who is pushing for a resolution in the Maryland legislature, paraphrased the late Justice Byron White's dissent in a 1978 Supreme Court case that granted corporations the right to certain political speech. "The state need not permit its own creation to consume and devour it," Raskin said. "And yet that's precisely what the Supreme Court did in the Citizens United decision."

In addition to the three senators, at least 11 members of Congress were at the event: Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Keith Ellison (Minn.), Rush Holt (N.J.), John Sarbanes (Md.), Betty Sutton (Ohio), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Ted Deutch (Fla.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Peter Welch (Vt.), and David Cicilline (R.I.). The lawmakers used their time at the microphone to highlight their support for the people's efforts to overturn Citizens United.

Schumer decried Citizens United, calling it "the worst decision since Plessy v. Ferguson," the infamous 1896 ruling that supported racial segregation with the doctrine of "separate but equal."

"At the very deepest sense, we are fighting to make sure that America does not become an oligarchy where people with unlimited sums of money control the political process and the economic process," Sanders said.

Udall put opposition to Citizens United and corporate personhood at the center of reform efforts. "All of the issues that you all love, that you care about -- whether it's tax fairness or whether it's making sure that the middle class grows -- all of those issues function around this issue. This is the core issue," he said.

And Edwards argued, "The question is not whether we should amend the Constitution. The question is whether we are going to have the leadership in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to reflect the will of the American people and return elections back to the people."

Wednesday's event was also organized by a number of groups opposed to the Supreme Court ruling, including Public Citizen, Common Cause, People for the American Way, Move to Amend and Communications Workers of America.

Since the Citizens United decision, there's been an explosion in political spending by independent groups, which are now allowed to accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals. Independent group spending set a record in the midterm election year of 2010 -- midterm election years usually see lower spending than presidential election years -- and is on pace to shatter that record in the 2012 election cycle.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Brian Scott Sampson]

12:26 AM on 05/05/2012

I'm trying to get a petition signed just for this! I know it might not be able to achieve anything but hell if I can get enough signatures, it will show that we are against this.(http://www.change.org/petitions/united-states-supreme-court-reconsider-citizens-united-vs-federal-election-comission)

[skibum415]

11:48 AM on 04/23/2012

It is humorous to me, for years Unions have been unimpeded running ads directly for or against politicians or positions. However, now that the group opposite unions, the corporation, is permitted to do so, it is suddenly wrong, evil, and corrupt.

What made it perfectly fine for unions to do it before when corporations could not? In my mind, unions are more corrupt than a corporation because unions FORCE individuals into being members, which means those individuals are FORCED into PAYING dues. This means those dues are then used for political positions individuals may not agree with.

I have researched this and "officially" the Union is not supposed to do this. They are supposed to raise funds independent of dues for political action however, there are MANY union members on the record stating they know their money has been used to promote "Union" political positions and candidates.

It'd be less hypocritical if Unions weren't permitted while the corporations weren't permitted. Now, everyone has the opportunity to say what they want.

[lucy088]

11:20 AM on 06/13/2012

Very informative post, thank you!!!!!

[David Snell]

04:37 PM on 06/14/2012

Skibum, you keep touting the fact that unions have been doing this for many years before Citizens United was passed. I hate to point out the obvious, however, I think we can all agree that two wrongs do not make a right.

Obviously, unions were behaving unscrupulously in the past and probably still are today. Now, corporations have jumped on board as well. How about instead of playing the blame game, or even leveling the playing field, we actually pass some legislation to take this privilege away from unions AND corporations.

What both of these entities are doing has and always will be wrong, evil, and corrupt.

[jorg1776]

08:53 AM on 04/22/2012

I am totally opposed to corperate personhood as interpreted by the supreme court however I fear the "solutions" being suggested are far worse and will in reality simply overturn the 1st ammendment instead. What needs to be addressed is not who can spend their money to shoot their mouth off on tv but rather when a corperate sponsored message expounds outright likes about a citizen like the "Swift Boat" people did. What the law needs to be is remove the anonamitity (sp??????) and strip any protections the laws of incorperation may offer those who sponsored those lies. Just like the first ammendment does not protect you from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded building, so too it should not protect individuals who commit slander and libel. Put a few billionares in Falsom with the hard core violent prisoners there, I am certain this kind of behavior would grind to a halt.

[jorg1776]

09:13 AM on 04/22/2012

Lies* grrr pre coffee typing

[skibum415]

12:07 PM on 04/23/2012

You don't like corporate personhood. Do you like unions being able to spend unlimited amounts for candidates or issues (as they have for YEARS prior)? It is sorta funny how union's contribute 95% Democrat and 98% Progressive issue. Sorta funny that way.

So, is it alright for unions but wrong for corporations or do you think ALL these years unions shouldn't have been donating either, after all a union is a forced membership organization with forced dues to be taken out by the company or state?

[jorg1776]

05:44 PM on 04/23/2012

You miss my point political donations are not "SUPER PACs" there is a difference. We have political finance law this is something totally different. This is individuals or small groups spending their own money (totally ok so far) on radio and tv airtime (still fine with me, want to buy a min of superbowl commercial time to show us the weeds in your yard or even to moon the TV fine with me) to spread intentionally destructive lies about American citizens (OK Stop right there ye crossed a line)for political gain that is unacceptable. You can argue your side of a political issue or even against a political cantidate all you want as long as EVERY SINGLE WORD is absolutely and irrefutably 100% verifyable TRUTH. No stretching the truth distorting the truth or making up lies and repeating them till people believe it. As dispicable as polititians are (every last one GOP or Dem I cant stand either) they are still American Citizens and must therefore be given the same protection under the law.
I am all about protecting the first Ammendment I wouldnt even personally care if someone did drop F-Bombs on TV, that should not be a crime, though I might see it as very distasteful if used durring childrens programing. However the moment you begin to commit a crime by defaming somones character with untruths and outright fabrications then there should be no corperate sponsored law to protect you.

[Craig Clevidence]

12:37 PM on 04/19/2012

. Sen. Sanders and others advocacy of this issue is highly laudable however the issues of corporate personage and money equaling speech are in many ways red herrings and distract us from solving the seminal issues at hand. As far as corporate personage is concerned, determining the legal status and nomenclature utilized is not the seminal issue. What is crucial is what corporations, unions and other organizations and groups can do to distort democracy through the power they gain by aggregation both economically and politically.
That is why the Renew Democracy Amendment proposes that "The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens." This strong statement diffuses concern about the status of any organization as it would no longer be able to contribute. A constitutional amendment is indeed a tall order and that is why it is crucial for its advocates to gain a full understanding of the underlying issues and advocate for an amendment that is both powerful and can be widely acceptable to the vast majority of Americans of all political persuasions. http://www.renewdemocracy.org/

[jorg1776]

08:59 AM on 04/22/2012

You have a valid point however I aleready see the loophole your proposal leaves. It does not specifically address Super PACs. They are not specifically tied to a party or cantidate on paper so they would not be in any way restricted by your proposed ammendment. What we need is simply to enforce criminal laws already on the books concerning slander and libel and overturn any protections against such laws found in the laws of incorperation. No law should shelter and individual from prosecution for breaking any other law simply because they were paid to do it by a corperation. We could use that same standard to prosecute lobbiests for treason.

[Craig Clevidence]

11:01 AM on 04/22/2012

Section 4 of the RDA states; "The rights of all groups, associations and organizations to other political speech may be regulated by Congress but only as to volume and not content and only to protect the right of the individual voter’s voice to be heard." This would create for a constitutional basis for legislation regulating indirect expenditure such as PACs. The problem is that the First Amendment, while it is one of the most empowering statements in history, it does not provide for any regulation of any speech including yelling fire in a crowded theater which is an interpretation that our courts have held necessary for the public good. The problem with the Citizens United and the Buckley decisions is that the court has not held those regulations on speech necessary for the public good. That is why our organization exists to strive for a constitutional amendment as campaign finance laws have no basis in the Constitution currently. It is true that our proposal does not regulate indirect spending but it provides the basis for that regulation in the Constitution. That is what the Udall amendment and many others from legislators propose only. We consider that to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for campaign finance reform that would bring about small donor democracy. Until our representatives are paid only by the voter we can expect representation by special-interest and dysfunctional representative democracy. Please consider signing the support wall.http://www.renewdemocracy.org/support/

[skibum415]

12:24 PM on 04/23/2012

(Part 1/2)

Ummm treason. That's a mighty strong word you used there. After researching the previous 100 years I likely could count on two hands the number of people convicted of treason, and none would be corporations.

Going to the original poster's idea, if I understood it correctly, I think the best way to fix all of this is a Constitutional Amendment stating ALL political financing is to go to the candidate, party, or issue. However, individuals are permitted to contribute whatever they want to contribute. In these days of computers, all information must be made public within 48 hours.

(con’t)

[aforbes808]

12:16 PM on 04/19/2012

People Power! When government won't act in the best interest of it's people, the people must act.

www.movetoamend.org

[skibum415]

12:50 PM on 04/23/2012

I was wondering, if you are against corporations being permitted in the election process are you also against the Unions? They have been forcing employees to join, and those employees are then forced to become members, who are then forced to pay dues, which are then used in political ventures. It just so happens 95% of the candidates supported by unions were progressive and 98% of the initiatives were progressive.

So, unlike when I go to the union (say, CWA) websites today and they claim they have a separate fund for political activities. Members know and have come forward declaring the books clearly show how money is used in political ventures and the money is not from individuals who WANT to voluntarily support union ideals and donate to the cause. Nope, the money is from dues and goes into creating adds, getting buses, protesting, having protestors at events (yup, paying protestors - link below).

So, in short - you are against corporations. Does that also mean you oppose unions?

http://thedc.com/SEIUPaysProtesters

[aforbes808]

12:59 PM on 04/23/2012

Wake up sleepy head. It's time to transcend the GREAT LIE. Both sides worship Mammon. The people be damned. Peace be upon you.

[aforbes808]

12:13 PM on 04/19/2012

Already signed the petition for CA.

[SpeakupNation]

10:56 AM on 04/19/2012

Plessy v Ferguson was a terrible stain on this country. Citizen's United affects even more people - virtually everyone who is not in the 1%. We need a Constitutional Amendment that once and for all defines a 'person' is a natural person and not a corporation or organization.

[skibum415]

01:11 PM on 04/23/2012

(Part 1/2)

I'm curious what your plan would be?

Here is mine - only people may contribute to a campaign, party, or issue. Said people may contribute unlimited amounts as speech is not something to be limited. In this day and age of computers, all donations must be posted online within 48 hours including the amount, name, and city/state. The President made this famous last year and it would no longer be permitted, no "gift card" donations where there is no traceability. All donations must be made via check or credit card, both tied to a live name.

Finally, we should encourage people to get involved in our Republic's election process. Having organizations like moveon.org go in and target donation lists (like the Koch brothers and those who donate to ALEC) end up defeating the purpose of people getting involved in the political process, especially when radicals get absurd and violent and start to make threats. This is why I would include in the amendment punishment (federal felony) for anyone who attacks an individual from one of the donor lists. Additionally, the organizations who permit these attacks will have financial fines levied against them. Heavy fines. Our founders wanted the political entities to fight it out and be funded to be able to do so. They did not want for people to attack those supporting those supporting individuals, ideas, or parties.

(con't)

[skibum415]

01:11 PM on 04/23/2012

(Part 2/2)

So in short, unlimited donations from people not entities, to candidates, parties, and issues. Federal crime for those who opt to attack from the public list including financial fines for those who publish or support those who assist those who attack others.

See, I have a problem when politicians create enemies lists. Like Nixon did and like President Obama has done. When he called out the Koch Brothers and claims issues he has with them, those men are individual Americans who have never run for public office. They are off limits in my mind to the President and anyone else.
Open for other ideas.

[SpeakupNation]

01:29 PM on 04/23/2012

Just out of curiosity, when was this Obama 'enemies list' revealed, and what exactly did Obama say about the Koch brothers?

[Wayne Caswell]

10:42 AM on 04/19/2012

A constituent and 10 others wait in a reception area hoping to see their elected rep (or more likely an aid or intern) when in comes a lobbyist with a $50K check. Who gets face time? That money pays for TV ads that buy 100+ votes, so the 11 constituents will just have to wait while the lobbyist gets to see the Big Man. That's politics in America.

[jorg1776]

09:02 AM on 04/22/2012

You speak truth and specifically describe institutionalized professional treason.

[Alux]

09:38 AM on 04/19/2012

Now this is important news!

Union backed Democrats railing against the Citizens United decisions. Just as long as the Unions' right to give unlimited campaign contributions is not infringed.

I would say that the worst decision since Plessey was Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Supremes upheld a government's right to use imminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another.

But then that's just me. The concept of a corporation being a legal person is an old, old concept predating the United States.

[miketothad]

10:07 AM on 04/19/2012

damn... you parrots will say anything.

[NoSillyName]

10:28 AM on 04/19/2012

Pull that wool OFF of your eyes, Alux.

[DoubleYellowLines]

09:20 AM on 04/19/2012

Article 5: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Cities and towns issuing resolutions is inconsequential - the only effect is to notify their Reps that this issue is important to the people. The 'shorter path' is through Congress, but I expect that most of those folks are ducking their heads and hoping this all blows over after November. The American Electorate has a pitiably short memory.

[Tquin]

08:48 AM on 04/19/2012

Bernie Sanders is an admitted Socialist.

[rbenjamin]

08:59 AM on 04/19/2012

OMG!!!!!

[Naturebabe]

09:57 AM on 04/19/2012

FYI - a Socialist economy organizes economic demands per human needs.
The statement below was written by one of my followers on HP. And is well written. It will help you understand what a Socialist Government provides... Can you live otherwise?

Socialism in the USA is as old as the continental army. It's the US post office, all of the modern military, the interstate highway system, public water supplies, sewage treatment plants, ambulance service, public library, police force, air traffic controllers, courts/judges/prisons, Emergency responders, the Peace Corps, the municipal fireworks show on the 4th of July, the national park service...on and on. The USA would not be recognizable as the USA without its socialistic institutions.

[skibum415]

01:52 PM on 04/23/2012

(Part 1/2)

UNFORTUNATELY, ever since the "Great Society" and FDR with Woodrow Wilson we have seen the United States drift from a capitalistic republic toward a more socialistic democracy. Both were not intended by our founding fathers.

With the exception of the military and post office the founders intended the federal government to leave everything else at the state level for them to control. As the federal government clawed more and more into Washington the country became more socialist.

The states should be in control of roads, public water (subscriber based), sewage/treatment (subscriber based), libraries (if cities want them), police, air ports (best operated air ports are private not public), courts and prisons, emergency responders (private service), and the fire service (sometimes private).

As you may see I have trimmed down what you thought should be provided under a socialist nation (and frankly is now). Also, I have added areas where private operation has proven to be a better option than public.

(con't)

[skibum415]

01:54 PM on 04/23/2012

(Part 2/3)

The interstate system under Eisenhower was a power grab. It has helped out a lot but every year pork is shoved into the transportation bill. Air traffic should be privatized and would have been moved over to a GPS system already had it been. If airlines ran the sky's and had a vested interest in efficiency then they would pay to upgrade the infrastructure, they too would ensure it is manned with safe personnel vs. people who are asleep. The Peace Corps were never in any founding documents. Great idea but is not a part of our founder's plan. Malaria-No-More likely does more to prevent that disease than the Peace Corps attempt similar activities in the same area.

(con't)

[non-prophet guy]

08:30 AM on 04/19/2012

Finally! Someone on Capitol Hill is doing the right thing! Citizens United is the most corrosive act against Democracy in recent memory........perhaps we can take our country back.

[hobiedan]

08:05 AM on 04/19/2012

Most corrupt bench in history.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

03:58 AM on 04/19/2012

Sounds like a perfect subject for the general election.

The candidates can simply tell voters: are corporations people? Yes or no?

Or better: given that the SCOTUS has failed, who should be nominating the next round of supreme judges?

It's easy, really.

[luvdatbobcat]

09:45 AM on 04/19/2012

Very easy. I can't vote for Obama for this very reason.

[NoSillyName]

10:31 AM on 04/19/2012

Eh?

[jorg1776]

09:10 AM on 04/22/2012

Nw that is a good idea that I have suggested over and over. Put it to the voters to decide! Of course it will never happen but yea...

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

02:26 PM on 04/22/2012

It's not on the ballot, but the candidates can still take sides on the issue and make that one of the defining issues of their campaign.

I agree that it would be even better to ask the citizens whether they want corporations to share their rights. Like, you wouldn't just determine that cats get to vote without asking humans first whether they think it's ok.

[luapmi2]

03:55 AM on 04/19/2012

I always laugh at these articles. Companies do not cast ballots, but apparently a lot of stupid Americans do.

Don't make your ballot decision based on shiny paper pamphlets and glitzy TV ads with bold music. Try to assess the content of the message.

[fightfascismnow]

09:35 AM on 04/19/2012

If advertising doesn't work to distort the truth, why does Madison Avenue exist? What would be the reason for any campaigning if it didn't sway public opinion? I'm laughing at your reasoning which dismisses Citizen's United as irrelevant. Which ads do you see that show both or many sides to the issue?

Senator Chuck Schumer is right about the rulings dubious company.

[luapmi2]

03:24 PM on 04/19/2012

Because there are stupid people in America...remember Obama...President Transparent...President Change.....LOL, boy did you ever buy a bill of goods.

[NoSillyName]

10:32 AM on 04/19/2012

Careful not to split your sides.