Tweet
Efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution are time-consuming, tortuous and rarely successful.
But Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Tom Udall of New Mexico are proposing to do just that in an effort to blunt a Supreme Court decision that opens the door to unbridled corporate spending on political campaigns.
If approved, the amendment would essentially nullify last month's controversial, 5-4 ruling that struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations.
"I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the First Amendment, and I believe we must continue to do all we can to protect the free speech rights of the American people. But I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights," Dodd said in a statement.
Udall said the court ruling upends the notion that political campaigns "should be about the best ideas and not the biggest bank accounts."
Democrats in Congress have been scrambling for ways to diminish the effect of the court's ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken earlier this month found that 80 percent of those surveyed oppose the decision.
A constitutional amendment certainly would accomplish that goal. However it isn't easy: The U.S. Constitution hasn't been amended since 1992. It requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
"The odds are going to be stacked against it," said Trinity College Professor Ned Cabot, former national chairman of the citizens organization Common Cause. But, he added, Dodd's proposal could be a catalyst for opposition to the ruling.
"It's a useful way of engaging citizens in the discussion," Cabot said. The debate over the amendment could shed light on what he views as the corrosive influence of corporate spending on the American political system.
Other lawmakers have proposed bills to limit the scope of the court's decision, including barring companies from using government bailout money for political purposes.
"There will be proposals and I'm sure they will be useful proposals that will try to alter the landscape," Cabot said. "But this fundamentally wrong-headed notion can only be dealt with through one of two ways," amending the Constitution or waiting for a new court to issue a different decision.
Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
Dodd Leading Effort To Blunt Ruling On Corporate Spending On Elections - Courant.com
But Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Tom Udall of New Mexico are proposing to do just that in an effort to blunt a Supreme Court decision that opens the door to unbridled corporate spending on political campaigns.
If approved, the amendment would essentially nullify last month's controversial, 5-4 ruling that struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations.
"I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the First Amendment, and I believe we must continue to do all we can to protect the free speech rights of the American people. But I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights," Dodd said in a statement.
Udall said the court ruling upends the notion that political campaigns "should be about the best ideas and not the biggest bank accounts."
Democrats in Congress have been scrambling for ways to diminish the effect of the court's ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken earlier this month found that 80 percent of those surveyed oppose the decision.
A constitutional amendment certainly would accomplish that goal. However it isn't easy: The U.S. Constitution hasn't been amended since 1992. It requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
"The odds are going to be stacked against it," said Trinity College Professor Ned Cabot, former national chairman of the citizens organization Common Cause. But, he added, Dodd's proposal could be a catalyst for opposition to the ruling.
"It's a useful way of engaging citizens in the discussion," Cabot said. The debate over the amendment could shed light on what he views as the corrosive influence of corporate spending on the American political system.
Other lawmakers have proposed bills to limit the scope of the court's decision, including barring companies from using government bailout money for political purposes.
"There will be proposals and I'm sure they will be useful proposals that will try to alter the landscape," Cabot said. "But this fundamentally wrong-headed notion can only be dealt with through one of two ways," amending the Constitution or waiting for a new court to issue a different decision.
Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
Dodd Leading Effort To Blunt Ruling On Corporate Spending On Elections - Courant.com
NBA is a joke
Comment