The Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. That is why I have introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I did not do this lightly. In fact, I had never done it before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court's infamous 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I saw no alternative.
I strongly disagree with the ruling. In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign.
Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.
The ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. It has further tilted the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when the wealthiest people in this country already never had it so good. History will record that the Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.
At a time when corporations have more than $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making record-breaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says that these corporations have a constitutionally-protected right to spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real, live persons. If we do not reverse this decision, there will be no end to the impact that corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy.
According to an Oct. 10, 2011, article in Politico, "the billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million -- potentially much more -- to conservative groups ahead of Election Day 2012." Others are doing the same thing.
Does anybody really believe that that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?
Think about the consequences in Congress. When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street, like breaking up huge banks, what will senators be thinking about when they decide how to vote? Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds will be asking this: If I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big-money interest, am I going to be punished? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?
It's not just taking on Wall Street. Maybe it's taking on the drug companies. Maybe it's taking on the private insurance companies. Maybe it's taking on the military-industrial complex. Whatever powerful and wealthy special interests members of Congress are prepared to take on -- on behalf of the interest of the middle class and working families of this country -- they will know in the back of their mind that there may be a flood of money coming in to their state. They're going to think twice about how to cast that vote.
When the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger.
I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. But more needs to be done, something more fundamental and indisputable, something that cannot be turned on its head by a Supreme Court decision. That is why I proposed the constitutional amendment in the Senate as a companion measure to an amendment proposed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Deutch.
We have got to send a constitutional amendment to the states that says simply and straightforwardly what everyone - except five members of the United States Supreme Court - understands: Corporations are not people with equal constitutional rights. Corporations are subject to regulation by the people. Corporations may not make campaign contributions -- the law of the land for the last century. And Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.
Show your support for this amendment by signing here: sanders.senate.gov/savingdemocracy
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenSanders
Bob Edgar: Stopping the Next Blagojevich
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I'd love to see this admendment pass, BUT, it won't.
Republicans WILL block it.
Of course I'll sign my support for this amendment (sanders.senate.gov/savingdemocracy).
"Does anybody really believe that that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?" Of course, the answer is a resounding "NO!" Not anybody. So what does that say about the intrepid yet craven SCOTUS five? (--we know who you are.) To me it says that they are traitors to the idea of American democracy. By their own actions, they have forfeited their rights to any modicum of respect from anyone who values human equality. Seems to me, THAT is one of the things that American democracy is about. The lot of those five should be impeached and thrown into jail; at least one of them should have been there even before he got into the SCOTUS. [-cont'd]
That would get rid of confusing circus that befuddles the US.
Currently campaigns are financed by the public.
'Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.'
Either should unions...make sure your bill applies to all such organziations equally.
Kai
In fact, I believe that the amendment should state that only people in the electoral districts can contribute to a campaign and those amounts should be limited. For example, for your Congressional district, only people in that district may contribute to the candidates running and only up to $1,000.00 each candidate. No contributions by people outside of the district can contribute. Thus, those elected are very beholden to the people of that district, and not from outside interests.
NIX on the continued attacks on Unions. They need to do what the government was CREATED to do (and DOESN'T at all thanks to the size and power of what should NEVER have been allowed to exist, DURABLE corporations) - protect the individual from the irresistible power of business, whose ONLY goal is plunder, greed and oppression.
Unions should be given the power erroneously --and CRIMINALLY, BRIBERY is still a crime- given (SOLD) to corporations and wealth.
Wealth is a subset of power. It is a characteristic of power. The only antidote is Democracy. Everyone gets a vote, powerful and poor.
The US Stupid Court's decision to equate corporations with actual people has upset Democracy's ability to level the playing field at the ballot box. They overturned a century of law in doing so.
The only real defense against such raw stupidity at the top of the power structure is an independent government. The Court's decision put our government's independence into a lockbox and threw away the key.
*Ed Bernays uncloaked:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/spin/edward-bernays-assassin-of-democracy.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=century+of+the+self&aq=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM
I'm gonna say this again,"I wanna hug you...I do...I really do!"
You ARE one of the FEW VOICES emanating from the halls of Congress actually speaking for the people of America (can't hear that too many times, I hope).
The captains of industry have shown themselves to be little more than pirates.
Let's take their eye patches and their little parrots away from them
- they've poisoned the passages,
- they've crashed us on the rocks.
Time for them to "walk the plank".
The Constitution does not allow for a democracy, but actually protects against the tyranny of democracy (save for the 17th Amendment that allowedfor direct election of senators).
Rather we are a Republic.
With that said I donot disagree on your pointof how corporations being people.
A Republic is NOTHING MORE OR LESS than a governnent that DOES NOT HAVE A MONARCH -- OR AN OLIGARCHY (ie, any "-ARCH")
Republic means literally "a matter of the people." Thus, CLEARLY implied is "ALL the people."
A Democracy means every citizen has a vote.
Our Constitution describes an EGALITARIAN, Representative Democratic Republic.
The fallacy that a Republic is NOT a Democracy HAS TO STOP. It is clearly implied in the very definition of "Republic," as it's the antagonistic, tautological opposite of a monarchy OR AN OLIGARCHY. (or any --ARCHY INCLUDING a Plutarchy, which we actually have -NONCONSENTUALLY- which means it is not EVEN a Republic - if that were all you wanted. BUT the founders VERY clearly stated they intended far MORE, in clearly REPEATED terms of "equality.") ENOUGH!
We have a Democractic Republic that is limited by the Constitution.
Look up some of what the founding fathers wrote or said against Democracy. Our founding fathers feared democracy as a tyranny of the majority which is why we have representatives and not public votes (well one of many reasons).
Our government is based far more on the Roman Republic (House of Representatives and then a Senate) that Athenian democracy.
Democracy is an entirely different form of government and when used improperly to describe Western governments is just as bad as using the term Facism to describe a capitalist libertarian state.
Our republic does have equal citizenship but is designed so that a simple majority cannot force their ideas on the rest of the country.
There is a reason the Amendment process is extremely difficult.
Only every Republican politician and candidate in the land.
I'd say that Republican voters are also on board, but I doubt many of them even know what Bernie is talking about.
--Mayer Rothschild, bankster