Agnostic.com

14 14

[alternet.org] .................................................................................................
Group of 50 legal scholars call for 28th Amendment to overturn Citizens United: ‘A root cause of dysfunction in our political system’
.................................................................................................
When liberals and progressives cite former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s best and worst rulings of the Barack Obama era, they typically praise his support for same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges while slamming him for his support for unlimited corporate donations in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court obviously isn’t going to be overturning Citizens United anytime soon given its swing to the right, but a group of 50 legal experts have another idea for ending that decision: a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
.................................................................................................
The legal experts, according to the Law & Crime website, have signed a joint letter they plan to release on Constitution Day that calls for a constitutional amendment ending Citizens United. Those who have signed the letter range from former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter to Zephyr Teachout (a law professor at Fordham University in New York City) to two professors at the Harvard Law School: Lawrence Lessig and Laurence Tribe.
.................................................................................................
The letter states, “As attorneys, law professors and former judges with a wide variety of political beliefs and affiliations, we are convinced that our nation’s current election spending framework is a root cause of dysfunction in our political system and requires fundamental reform.”
.................................................................................................
Jeff Clements, an anti-Citizens United activist, discussed the campaign to end that hated decision with Law & Crime. Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonprofit that has been fighting to end Citizens United — which struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. the McCain-Feingold Act, and equated large campaign donations with free speech.
.................................................................................................
Clements told Law & Crime, “The Supreme Court has really made a mess of the First Amendment with the theory that money — unlimited money — is an expression of free speech. What this amendment would do is put us back on a strong foundation of free speech for all Americans, not just those with unlimited wealth.”
.................................................................................................
Clements doesn’t view Citizens United as a victory for free speech but rather, as suppression of free speech. And he said of Citizens United opponents, “We are advocates of free speech and the First Amendment. The free speech argument is actually on our side. Most Americans have less free speech now, when money dominates the system. When money is the dominant currency of who can run for office and what candidates are taken seriously — and when the money is coming from fewer and fewer sources — we have fewer voices. Most Americans cannot participate.”
.................................................................................................
According to Clements, “What we’re trying to show is that the Constitution wasn’t finished 243 years ago.”
.................................................................................................
In Congress, a bill calling for a 28th Amendment to overturn Citizens United has been introduced by Democrat Ted Deutch and Republican John Katko in the House of Representatives and by Democrat Tom Udall in the Senate.
.................................................................................................
Question: How soon do you think the bill to add this 28th amendment to the constitution will get passed?

AnonySchmoose 8 Sep 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

How can you prohibit corporations from disseminating information and opinions without prohibiting media corporations from doing the same?

If this new 28th amendment were enacted you’d have two conflicting amendments, the 1st and the 28th. I don’t think there’s going to be a 28th amendment on this issue because it would be illogical IMO. American Promise is itself a sort of association that is pooling resources to exert political power. If they were true to their own principles they would disband and leave the issue to individuals.

1

Doomed from the start with 40-45% of this Country Lobotomized Republiturds .

GEGR Level 7 Sep 19, 2019
2

I support (and have contributed) to multiple organizations dedicated to overturning Citizens United. Our political system is broken and will remain so, so long as insane amounts of money can be used to sway elections. But if the hard right followers of whats-his-name keep control of the Senate and/or win the next presidential election, this nation is doomed.

2

We absolutely need to overturn, get rid, and deep six Citizens United.

CS60 Level 7 Sep 19, 2019
2

I don't know how long it will take, but sign me up! I want to help!!

2

I think the majority of the people believe money in politics is bad. In a vote of the people, Citizens United would be repealed. Getting Congress to vote on the 28th Amendment is the hard part.

Precisely why we need to vote and change our Congress. Replace these money and power hungry people with Representatives that actually work for We the People and not solely for themselves.

5

There is really no legitimate legal, historical, or constitutional reasoning that justifies the Citizens United Ruling.

2

Not in my lifetime..

2

I suspect it will fail. Likely to find either one house or the other will stymie it or it will get vetoed, talked down or found to be unconstitutional due to the balance of the supreme court... unbiased of course!
Covered this in US politics on Wednesday.

4

As KK said, after the election. If it doesn't happen we will continue to decline as a nation. I believe we also need to have a law that if you serve in the House or Senate, you can't work as a lobbyist after you leave office. Finally, term limits. I have been back and forth on this one and have come to the conclusion the only things these folks do with their experience is use it to figure out ways to keep their jobs while doing almost nothing.

Well, they do line their own pockets. I guess they think that's work. 😠

5

Ask me again after the 2020 elections.

I'm always leery of constitutional amendment solutions because they take so long and they need to maintain a semi-consensus for long periods while they proceed.

I have hopes for a liberal backlash in 2020 especially given the number of Republicans defending Senate seats vs the number of Democrats. But maybe I'm just getting old -- my confidence is weak.

3

Am I right in thinking that in your country, as in mine, most proposals for constitutional amendments are defeated? Anyway I wish this one luck.

Senex Level 5 Sep 19, 2019
2

Awesome

bobwjr Level 10 Sep 19, 2019
5

If it happens at all, it won't be until AFTER the 2020 election. IF 45 loses, and
the republicans no longer hold a majority in either the House or Senate.
If 45 gets another term, and the republicans are still in control of the Senate,
there's no way in hell it'll ever pass.

That's a lot of ifs 😟 I miss our democracy.

@MizJ I feel ya. There is nothing about this that is "normal".
45 must be removed, with extreme prejudice.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:404351
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.