Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Bernie Sanders Proposes A Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United
Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed a constitutional amendment today that would overturn Citizens United and make it clear that corporations are not people.
Sen. Sanders’ proposed Saving American Democracy amendment states,
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
In a statement Sen. Sanders said, “There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment.” Sanders said of the effort to override the court decision that he labeled “a complete undermining of democracy.”
There is one interesting component to the Saving American Democracy Amendment that makes it different from all of the other proposed amendments and remedies designed to overturn Citizens United. Section 4 of the amendment strikes at the basis for every Supreme Court decision related to campaign finance. Sanders is also taking aim at the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision where the Supreme Court ruled spending money to influence elections was a form of protected free speech, and struck down limits on expenditures.
The amendment proposed by Sanders changes this by giving Congress the power to set expenditure limits on individuals, organizations, and candidates themselves. The Saving American Democracy Amendment would return the government back to the people by shutting off the money pipeline from the wealthy and special interests. It is also significant that the amendment limits the amount of money a candidate can give to their own campaign. This means that candidates would no longer have to be millionaires, or grovel at the feet of corporate America and the 1% in order to be able to run.
If this amendment was passed and ratified, anyone could run for office. The electoral process would once again be open to the candidates with the best ideas, not the biggest bank accounts. The Saving American Democracy Amendment would not only get rid of the corrupt Citizens United decision. It was also right a series of decades old wrongs that are based on the Buckley decision.
The odds of the amendment getting the support of the required two thirds majorities in the Senate and House, and ¾ of the states needed for ratification are slim, but that isn’t really the point. It is important to keep calling attention to this issue. Campaign finance reform is the only way for the American people to take back their elections and government.
Sen. Sanders is trying to wake America up with this amendment. The politicians aren’t going to fix it, the one percent isn’t going to kill their golden goose, and the Koch brothers own a majority on the Supreme Court, so it is up to the American people to take back the government that by constitutional design belongs to them.
During a Reddit IAmA chat, President Obama made some big news today by announcing that he supports a con ...
The great journey to undo the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision took another step today when Sen. ...
On the heels of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introducing an amendment to overturn Citizens United, Sen. Ri ...
Sen. Bernie Sanders is praising President Obama's support for his constitutional amendment and movement ...
Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a blistering criticism of the Supreme Court after they strengthened Citizens ...
Duane Bitter
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Bernie for President in 2012!!!
Mary Laan
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
The opnly problem is that it leaves out not-for-profit entities, like PAC’s, which ruins the bill. PACs will still be able to functionthe same way, and they’re a BIG problem!
SteveH
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@Mary Laan: Perhaps you missed Section 4 where it states:
“Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on ALL ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
Misty
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
2016 more likely. b/c we’ve got more work to do.
Paul Platt
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 9:19 am
We will need a grassroots movement to support this proposal. That means human power and dallors to make this a reality. And, we need to start now.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
you know we could use the Republicans own arguments against them. Every time gay rights as brought up they talk about people marrying dogs and horses. Well now that inanimate objects such as corporations are citizens perhaps that can be extended to pet rocks and the mountain that I live on. I am kind of thinking that my car could be declared a citizen.
The Supreme Court had absolutely no right to do what they did in determining citizenship for corporations. This is patently against the democracy that we live in. Now the big problem is going to be how many Democrats who belong to rich people and corporations will go along with this. We already know the Republicans are not on the side of Americans
You can add this onto the actions that Los Angeles took the other day. Do away with citizens United
FinancePhD
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
You know that we are not in a democracy right? We are in a republic. Sad that people are so wrong about that.
It doesn’t really matter what a city says. A city could declare that redheads are not people and can’t participate in elections but it wouldn’t hold water either.
Sarah Jones
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Actually, Phd, we are in a democratic republic.
marc spencer
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
no, actually we live in a plutocracy.
Sarah Jones
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
oh, you’re going to go all realist on me.
Kat karsecs
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 12:58 am
Isn’t it a constitutional, democratic, federated republic? Don’t forget those very important Federalist Papers written while the Constitution was being banged together, in the early days of democratically elected government of the republic!
Sarah Jones
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 1:29 am
I thought I saw those tattoed on Sarah Palin’s hand….so yes.
Karen R
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Stop with this we are a republic business on the right. If we were just a republic we would not have the constitution. So up yours!
Daddycool
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Look up the actual meaning of republic. USA is a republic. So what? The problem is, that some people think that because this is a republic it should be ruled by republicans LOL.
No joke … Dumb azz hillbillies(almost half of the electorate) thinks exactly that !!!
Sarah Jones
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I would love to see the faces of these people when they learn that their idea of “republic” is as Machiavelli intended, rather than as the founders intended. American republicanism (as opposed to “Republicanism”) is based on liberal ideologies.
Anonymouse
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Sarah, trying to explain that to these people is a waste of time. You can’t explain it to a 3rd grader and expect them to understand, trying to explain it to people with 3rd grade educations is basically the same thing.
Sarah Jones
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
I enjoy banging my head against a brick wall! OUCH! :-)
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
phd the word democracy takes on many meanings. If you want to place strict with the language that you are absolutely right. But for all intents and purposes this is a democracy
It does matter what a city says, especially when a city the size of Los Angeles says something as a group. Simply because cities that size can influence other cities and other people. But I’m sure you knew that having a PhD. Your example is childish and meaningless
FinancePhD
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 11:05 am
We are nothing like a democracy. 51% of voters can’t rule over the 49%. LA doesn’t sway the public because everyone knows it is pandering at its worse. The same reason states do not follow on gun laws or car emissions.
This amendment has no chance but it does show that Bernie has his own target and has friends to protect. Something clean like all human citizens would accomplish the goal of ending corporate donations.
Do you know why we have corporate personhood? There is a reason the focus is on donations and not on stripping personhood.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Los Angeles does sway other people because it is a very large city. Gun laws and car emissions are not the same thing as what citizens United is.
maybe the amendment has no chance but it raises Attention to the issue
A Corporation is made up of people but in and of itself is not a person. The Supreme Court had no right in determining that a Corporation which is a name only to have physical human rights.the people who make up a Corporation are free to give contributions from their own personal pockets. A Corporation should not be
kid1der
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Why do we have to make loopholes in these things. Simply state that homo sapiens are the sole recipients of these rights. We can worry about the dolphins and robots later.
This is a power play by the religious right to make themselves more powerful
Douglas Adams
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
So long and thanks for all the fish.
C Bryan King
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya!
Ole Ole Olson
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Good on ya Bernie, but don’t expect any help from the corporate right.
FinancePhD
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Or the corporate left I imagine?
Gindy51
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Shiva, damned right. ALL inanimate objects are people so now my cars can be declared as dependents on my income tax.
crystalwolfakacaligrl
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
And my Dog. She deserves to be a person too.
FinancePhD
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
It is curious that it blocks business but only for profit so a not for profit is clear. Also depending on the charter, a union may be clear. Good thing this would not pass Congress and a requisite number of states. =)
Daddycool
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
A union is a collection of workers (people) who collectively contribute money to the union. Union members (people) also get to decide who gets the campaign contributions.
A corporation does not ask it’s employees (people) where they think the contributions should go. And they shouldn’t ask either … because it’s not the employee’s(people’s) money that the corporation will use. It’s the corporation’s money. A corporation is not a person.
FinancePhD
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 10:52 am
A corporation is a collection of shareholders (people) and the shareholders (people) vote on what the company does through elected representatives (board). There is no reason to go after business and give Sanders’ friends a pass.
Dave Browning
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
i would add the line item veto… it would cut at the heart of the motivation for corruption, put some real executive power in the presidency, and the pork would be dead.
but i do like the fact it is the constitution that bust be changed, all the law, politics, and financing stem from the constitution, which is very old… the oldest (unedited) yes? constitutional reform is whas necessary, for a more succinct interplay between legislation and the court, as well as money and politics, not to mention the People and their government..
Daddycool
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
I think it’s great idea. Although it won’t pass currently, we need to get every person in congress, repub and democrat alike, to vote on this so we’ll have an historical record of exactly where they stand on this very important issue.
The congressmonsters will have an opportunity to make or break their legacy right here.
Up next for the record ? Grover Norquist and the legality of making outside pledges while serving as a lawmaker in our govt. Another legacy making opportunity.
Grant
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
As one who has been deeply involved in overturning Citizens United since shortly after the ruling, I applaud Sen. Sanders’ efforts to do the same. That said, I cannot support the glaring loophole for non-profits, which could include (for example) political or ideological PACs. For this reason, I urge Sen. Sanders and others to look at the language proposed by MoveToAmend.org here: movetoamend.org/amendment
Susan Harrison
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
First, a democracy would only care what 51% thought, with no protections for the other 49%. A republic enables protections for those 49%. It is an important difference, and one that one day maybe we can be proud of again.
Although I am an admirer of Congressman Sanders, and would support him for president, the amendment doesn’t include non-profits. As most of us know, corporations, political groups, and others would have no problem setting up non-profit entities, and using them to influence our elections and our governance.
Please fix this Bernie, so I can support this amendment. As it stands, I cannot.
Thank you.
MaddowJunkie
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Agreed. Non-profits would also cover churches so they can stop bankrolling ballot initiatives that don’t jive with their particular mythology.
To my friends on the right, I would remind them that this would also include UNIONS… which we know is what really caused the economy to collapse in 2008, right Scott Walker? /snark
Rmuse
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Sanders is up against a giant on this one. It will take the 99% to force their representatives to fall in line and end the corporations are people or we’re screwed. The people do not like the SCOTUS decision so it should be an easy fix. Unfortunately, Citizens United made it where the people have no voice. Sickening. Great article Jason!
Sarah Jones
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Did you get the link I sent you on the new right wing troll tactics? They think they can hijack the conversation by shifting it and causing chaos. HELLO, so not a news flash. But they are teaching them to even use different emails so they can “infiltrate” and “earn trust” before they CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT SOCIALISM!
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Wasn’t this a long time ago? I picked this one out of a crowd instantly
Sarah Jones
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
This is their new and improved secret mission plan! Happy holidays:-)
ibwilliamsi
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 1:33 am
My hero!
George Schuhmann
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 6:46 am
The proposal is narrowly directed against Citizens United and for-profit corporations. But the problem of money in politics is more pervasive, and it should address three additional areas:
1. Limit contributions to citizens (per the 14th Amendment).
2. Set a cap in the constitution itself. E.g., $1,000 per election per citizen.
3. Ban professional lobbying. It is merely a way for money to influence legislative outcomes.
We need a 28th Amendment to do all of the above.
George Schuhmann
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 6:52 am
More is needed to address the pernicious effect of money in shaping national policies. We need an amendment that limits contributions and influence to citizens (per the 14th amendment) with a constitutional cap on the amount that can be given. Otherwise too many money-influences will impact on Congress.
See Amendment 28 on my Facebook wall.
F. Julian
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 9:27 am
About time. Thank God for one politician to actually know how to work within constitutional laws and create legislation to make our government work! I’m 100 percent behind this legislation.
ponderthis
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Absolutely include non-profits and yes churches need regulating too. I’ve been an accountant for 25 yrs and worked for many…they are just another business in the end.
The owners (and ministers) get their salary, mtg paid, go on cruises, buy iphones all nicely tucked under the acct “business exp or continued ed) and 5% or less goes to an actual charity in the end.
Oh and they can also “contribute” towards this non-profit with personal $ and get further tax write-offs..nice loopholes all the way around.
Gene
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I own stocks none of the corporations who have contributed to candidates have ever asked me whether I approve. They do give you the opportunity to vote for officers in the corporation but I don’t know their politics or who they might want to contribute to. If corporations represent the shareholders they should poll every shareholder on every cent they wish to contribute to every candidate and they should poll every shareholder on every political ad that they run or they are spending my money on their own opinions not the opinions of the Corporations who are all the shareholders.
But in reality Corporations don’t represent the opinions of the real owners of the corporation they express the ideas of a small elite which is not in keeping with the spirit of them being a person who should enjoy first amendment rights so those elite few should be allowed to contribute to campaigns but their own money not the shareholders money. But still I am against constitutional amendments for things that can be fixed in other ways and I would much prefer that some new court would overturn the decision.
Joseph
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
To end this argument , we are a Republic with a veneer of Democracy. There is no direct vote for President. Technically your vote per se is irrelavent to the outcome of who becomes President because we are not a direct Democracy.The people who have the ultimate power over choosing who becomes President of the United States are those in the Electoral College if they de3cide to enter their votes in for the loser of the popular vote he becomes the ” elected ” President. You can easily win the Popular vote and lose the Electoral College vote. A sad thing but true. Those who still think we are a Democracy have taken the blue pill.
Will Setchu
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 1:01 am
viagra?
don baggett
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:55 am
I agree with senetor Barnnie Sanders…the amendment is necessary and should be passed by congress.
Ggggg
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Section 2 = we are now socialist
Section 4 = government now controls election campaigns
Democracy FTW!
Edward G. Burton
Dec. 14th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Section 4 needs some editorial work … I got lost trying to follow the last part.
Edward G. Burton
Dec. 14th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Ggggg, you need to learn a little bit more about the definition of socialism, namely state ownership of all means of production and/or distribution. If you give such a meaning to ‘regulate’, then is it socialist to regulate the speed at which you drive down the highway? As for your likely main point, I remember society without government regulation: filthy air and water, beggars on every corner, and fat cats owning 90% of everything … oh, they do that again now. Hard to see how they do that with all that government ‘socialism’.
Edward G. Burton
Dec. 14th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
One clarification necessary would be that some parts of Constitutional rights appropriately apply to corporations:
deprivation of property without due process of law
payment of just compensation,
right to counsel another
speedy trials
due process of law
and so forth.