Today is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. If you think it’s going well, ask your local Presidential candidate how he likes those SuperPAC ads.
Several actions are taking place today. The “Occupy the Courts” movement will hold rallies in front of major courthouses, including the US Supreme Court (in New York City, they had their permit denied, so they’re moving back to Liberty Plaza today). That is affiliated with the “Move to Amend” movement, seeking a constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood. They’ve already been successful in getting dozens of state and local resolutions passed in support of the amendment. Another intriguing group agitating for a Constitutional amendment that has sprung up in recent days is United 4 the People, a coalition of over 50 progressive organizations, including People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Common Cause and more. Here’s their statement of common purpose:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC has focused America’s attention on the dangerous influence of corporate power in our democracy and the urgency of taking all necessary measures to undo that influence, including amending the Constitution.
Generations of Americans have amended the Constitution over the years to ensure that “We the People” means all the people, not just the privileged few. The Citizens United case, which opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending to influence elections at all levels of government, has brought home the importance of amending the Constitution to ensure that “We the People” does not mean we the corporations.
We believe that America works best when our government is of, by and for the people. Although we have differences in scope and tactics, all of us are united in the understanding that the Court’s decision in Citizens United must be remedied by amending the Constitution in order to restore the democratic promise of America.
Amending the Constitution is by definition a long-term fight. But these groups want to wage it, because they believe there is no alternative for democracy. And they already have rhetorical buy-in from one political party. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee surprisingly launched an online petition for a Constitutional amendment. Now, maybe they’ve done this because it’s something they can’t deliver, at least in the near term. But the experts also said that anti-piracy legislation would definitely pass. And there’s reason to believe that conservatives who have endured this primary season aren’t entirely thrilled about the new rules.
Until we have full public financing of elections, money, like water, will find its way into the hands of candidates. The world before Citizens United featured a good deal of influence-peddling, after all. But that’s no reason to turn on the spigot full blast. An amendment banning corporate personhood would have a number of applications to the benefit of society. And it represents a rallying point for progressives, to create a more perfect union.




16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
In any venture that demands so much time and money as a constitutional amendment, we have to look at coalitions. I for one am surprised that the Republicans ended up being the group to stop PIPA this morning.
I wonder what it would take to get corporations to find they do not actually like Citizens United. Could their be a point at which they are forced to spend too much money to buy their politicians? A Senator was certainly cheaper to buy 2 years ago! s/
The problem is much deeper than just the Citizens United decision. In his powerful new book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress–and a Plan to Stop It Larry Lessig does an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon he labels “Dependence Corruption,” and the many ways it distorts legislative action away from the interests of the people in favor of special interests. He argues persuasively that the chances of this present system being changed from within (i.e. by Congress itself) are vanishingly small, and that the most promising of the other alternatives available is a set of Constitutional Amendments originated by a Constitutional Convention which proscribes the participation of sitting elected and politically-appointed federal office holders. This book is a Must Read for anyone who cares about the future of democratic government in the USA.
No matter what the constitution says the Roberts Court will decide what it means. So why bother. Forget about a convention. It would be broken up by riot police. There are no legal remedies for oppression by a Fascist Police State.
I agree that public funding is the key, but that is why I find this all so maddening. Public funding (as long as there is no trigger) would not be struck down by the Court. It does not require a constitutional amendment. It can be pursued at the state and federal levels. And it would deal with much more of the problem, rather than focusing on corporate spending. There are other things that could be done as well – such as people-powered electoral strategies (that obviously cost less), shareholder rights laws, pressuring institutional investors to tamp down on political spending (including lobbying), ensuring former staffers get good pensions (so they can leave with less temptation to go into lobbying) or changing the way consultants are paid so that they do not get more money for running more ads.
We seem to be focusing on the most difficult path to a partial (at best) solution. And much of it seems based on a misreading of CU (which was not really about personhood anyway). And if we are going to have an amendment related to elections, why not include something to better protect the right to vote as well – since disenfranchisement is clearly part of the problem too.
This all seems to be misguided, both strategically and tactically.
We’re all dooooooooooooomed!
Why even come here then? Seriously?
I think that Herman Cain (aka Stephen Colbert) will win South Carolina tomorrow, and this ain’t snark. If I was a registered South Carolina Democratic Party voter (whatever age, race or gender), I’d vote in the Republican Party primary tomorrow for Herman Cain (aka Stephen Colbert) as a protest vote, against Citizens United and against all the Krackpot Konservative Kandidates still running. Besides, it’d be great to see all the white Republicans voting freak-out when a whole lot of South Carolina African-American Democratic Party voters showed up at each polling place to cast their vote for Herman Cain (aka Stephen Colbert). Priceless.
Because of his conflicts of interest, Justice Clarence Thomas ought to retroactively recuse himself from the Citizens United decision, which would result in its overturning because of the 4-4 vote.
Will Justice Thomas do this as a matter of conscience?
Is not that the way of all addicts. Nothing is done till you hit bottom. Along the way the media will say all is golden. Truth sucks.And it will eat us alive.
That’s a great idea if votes in South Carolina were actually counted. Unfortunately, they’re not.
100% Unverifiable Statewide E-Voting in SC’s 2012 GOP Primary
Interesting. So who exactly decides what the outcome will be? Nikki Haley is the top Republican in the State and Mitt Romney would be the highest bidder. Does Nikki get rich? Will Nikki be Mitt’s running mate? Or does Karl Rove decide these things in conference with Henry Kissinger?
We need to quickly break down exactly what the Left did to sell SOPA/PIPA hold and do it again quickly for the Citizen’s United solution Amendment, before the corporate media figures out what they can throw money at to stop it.
If I were a spin doctor for the oligarchs and was tasked with manipulating the swinish multitudes into a reactionary struggle that deflects criticism from systemic corruption ,I would take the sheep down this dead-end road of CU resistance that is so egregiously paved with astroturf .
Good discussion of the issue, including opinions expressed in David Kalb’s comment, here.
http://www.alternet.org/news/153814/the_uphill_battle_against_citizens_united%3A_tricky_legal_terrain_and_no_easy_fixes/?page=entire
We need an amendment to say “A corporation isn’t a person” ?
How will that read in the future ? Huh .
The constitution offers a quicker and more effective means namely impeachment.
The five clowns who think like this don’t deserve a seat on the highest court in the land. Five campaigns alined with a pledge required from those running for congress, namely the whole house where this process starts, to open impeachment hearings on these five when the next congress opens . The five cases would review all past votes like the 2000 election and such , along with citizens united. thomas,scalia and kennedy would be a group easier to convict with the overthrow of the congressional prerogative to have the last say on elections. alito and robber lied to congress about settled law among other things so let the trials begin.
Would it throw the country in turmoil ? The turmoil we fear would be retuning to the rule of law.
Thanks ksix. That article really explains what the contours of this discussion look like. I cannot overstate how important this piece is.
The highest bidder is the one who can be expected to influence the outcome. It remains to be seen who that will be.