The Anti-"Citizens United" Amendment

Probably better identified as the "Anti-First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti" Amendment to the United States Constitution, the idea is to under the effect of Citizens United v FEC, McCutcheon v FEC and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti by proposing the implementation of the 28th amendment to the United States constitution stating, roughly, that money is not speech and corporations do not have natural rights and that's it's congress's job to regulate federal election financing. These Supreme Court rulings have undermined any ability for Congress to create legislation that deals with the ability of corporations or particularly wealthy individuals to influence politicians by donating to their campaigns. Yet polling data regularly shows that a massive, bipartisan, majority of Americans of the order of three quarters of the population, believe in the corrupting influence of money in politics and the need for limits on political spending and contributions.[1] [2] [3] and half would just straight up go for public financing to take it out altogether.

The process of amending the United States constitution is detailed in Article Five. The way all amendments have been done up until the present has been for two thirds of both houses of congress to vote for a proposed amendment and then for that amendment to be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures.

This is in fact two parts- the proposal and the ratification- and these two parts do not have to go only that way. Ratification can actually also be done by state conventions as a way of avoiding having to go through the legislature if the amendment in some way deals with them. I would think the most relevant case for that would be the 17th amendment- which effectively was taking a power away from state legislatures- but it actually was only used for the 21st-repealing prohibition. What I really want to point out is that there is no time limit on ratification, unless that is written into the proposal by congress, so states can ratify as very different times until the requisite number is made up.

The proposal, like the ratification, has a process by which it can avoid the people the amendment may be dealing with- rather than being proposed by congressional votes, Congress can be compelled to call a convention to propose an amendment if two thirds of states' legislatures demand it. I view this as the most likely path for such an amendment to take. Why? Well, because I found out about the issue from Wolf-PAC after a wiki walk and I just regurgitate their thoughts which are: federal politicians have become so dependent on and affected by corporate and wealthy donor contributions that they are unlikely to support the overthrow of the system which has put them at the top. Not only does trying to support such an amendment make shilling for cash more difficult, they are just surrounded by a network that is going to push them to not do it. State legislature, on the other hand, have campaigns over smaller consituencies for much smaller costs, on the order of $400, with some state congresspeople being part time. They are much less affected by the issue and more willing to support the popular will on the issue. Plus, if you look at the precedent of the 17th amendment which was on track to being called this way, Congress decided it would be easier to just go ahead and pass it themselves.

While the Unites States of America had an intentionally difficult amendment process, most Americans through history have lived through an amendment or two. You can find further details on the process, issues and the movements to amend the constitution at https://movetoamend.org/, http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/ and the smaller, rougher round the edges group http://www.wolf-pac.com/ .

So what are your thoughts on the need for the amendment? What route do you think has the best chances for success? How would you personally get involved in trying to make it happen?

edited 7th Apr '14 2:03:43 PM by SomeSortOfTroper

I think it's an excellent idea. You can easily get involved by joining one of the many on-line groups and represent your area. You can also donate your time or your money.

I joined Move to Amend quite a while ago. They're probably the most promising group.

Really has to limit all individuals and all organizations, both for-profit and type-501 groups. Otherwise you just get the creation of shell organizations.

This'll be an interesting one because it will very likely see bipartisan opposition amongst elite politicians, but bipartisan support from the people at large.

What can a U.S./Canadian dual citizen living and working in Japan do to help? I'm an atheist, praying for the amendment's success is out of the question.

Got any spare money? Spare time? Licking envelopes is always helpful.

Again, I live and work in Japan.

Then make phone calls. Or send emails. Or write copy. Or summarize news articles. There's a hundred things you could do.

If you think that "money is not speech" and that wealthy people/corporations shouldn't be able to use their wealth to influence public opinion, then shouldn't you be trying to eliminate all paid advertising?

Not necessarily. There's a difference between spending and contributing- it's the caps on contributions, not the spending, that is being undermined by recent Supreme Court decisions.

Vermont has actually passed a call for an amendment recently -JRS 27.

I'm trying to look up all the state legislatures that have something at different stages. For example, Illinois has SJR 42 which has passed a Senate vote, California has AJR 1 which is also through one chamber. There should be 10 such bills out there in different stages of consideration.

edited 4th May '14 10:14:24 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

^^^ The primary difference between paid advertising by a group and contributions is who gets the money. If I independently buy ads on behalf of a candidate, the money goes straight to the media outlets I choose to use, and I must identify myself at the end of every ad and state that I paid for it. If I contribute money to the candidate; (s)he gets the money and can use it any way they want, and they don't have to say who gave it to them until after the election is over when they turn in their final accounting report to the Election Commission.

edited 4th May '14 10:28:41 AM by Madrugada

Law professor Lawrence Lessig, famed for his activity on modernising copyright and money in politics, has set up his own Super PAC May Day PAC [1][2] targetting congressional races:

So the key distinguishing features here are the fact that it's a Super PAC, the fact that it's targeting congressional races and probably most of all is the kickstarter style funding scheme.

I wish him luck, but 12 mil is a drop in the bucket.

That's why the plan is to start with only five, carefully chosen races, in 2014, backing a candidate who commits publicly to work for campaign reform and who actually has a chance to win. They'll use what happens in those five races to figure out what works and what doesn't, then make the big push in 2016, shooting to take a majority of seats for candidates who have committed to work for statutory campaign reform in either or both houses. Ideally, both.

Take a look at the FAQ page on the main site for the organization. This could work.

edited 11th May '14 5:56:56 PM by Madrugada

I googled the average campaign costs for a congressional seat and a sentatorial seat. Congressional seats came in at around $1.6 million, Senators at $10.2m. He's going to have matched contributions from another source (which he's not revealing at this time) so it will actually be more like $10m instead of $5 which means that there should be more than the average cost of five congressional seats.

Right. He's looking at 12 million from this one source: 6 from the Kickstarters and 6 from matches. But they also are accepting direct donations as well, so the total they have to work within 2014 will be at least 12 million. And that's a nice chunk for five campaigns.

You dont have to subsidize a candidates entire campaign. That would perhaps be an excessive amount of influence. You only have to provide enough money to obtain a promise to support campaign finance reform. So he could spread that 12 mil around, say 20 races, see maybe 10 of them get elected, and be able to count on that many supporters in the next Congress. It's small, but a beginning. The real payoff on this, hopefully, will be the buzz- publicity generated by the novelty of helping someone get elected this way, for this purpose.

They aren't going got underwrite a candidates entire campaign. They' re going to do five large infusions of cash into five campaigns that they think they can win.

Yes, you could spread it around thin and hope for a percentage result. That's what various other organizations have been doing. And it hasn't been working well. Please, read the main page; the reasoning is given there in much more detail than the news stories. He's basically saying, "Instead of spreading it around thin to a lot of races and maybe getting the winner we want in a couple of them, we're going to do exactly what the big-money interests do: dump enough money into a race to win it." As he says, "Ironic, that we're doing the same thing as the people we're trying to beat. Embrace the irony."

This could work.

edited 12th May '14 7:07:42 AM by Madrugada

I just read everything I could find. Unless I missed something, it doesnt appear that they are going to support specific candidates directly (that is, contribute to a campaign fund). I would guess that they are planning to purchase advertising within a five local markets in an attempt to raise awareness about this issue and mention which candidate supports one of the five proposed reforms (mentioned here. If they meet their fundraising goals (which are are ahead of time to do) they intend, in other words, to saturate the media market in five races. I doubt that alone will win very many elections, but if they back even one winner, then perhaps they will build some momentum for 2016. The odds are not necessarily in their favor (they themselves call it a "moonshot") but at least they are trying to do something. This is much, much better than giving up.

So we have one well publicized and funded attempt to enact constitutional reform (Move to Amend) and one well publicized and funded attempt to enact legislative reform (May One). These are good things.

No, they won't be contributing to the candidates' own campaign funds. They're going to do what the big money superPACs do: run an ad/awareness campaign that's legally independent of the candidate, but functionally hand-in-hand with his/her official campaign. ("The Mayday PAC is a super PAC. That means it spends the money it collects independently of any political campaign.")

Bloomberg and the Kochs can't donate the enormous sums they use to the candidate's campaign fund — there are laws limiting how much any one person an give. What they do is have MAIG or some other Super PAC run ads under their own name. There's no limit on that. For instance, in the 2012 Wisconsin recall election on Scott Walker, his official campaign spent about 30 million. Groups that were not a part of his official campaign spent about 33 million. "Independent Expenditure Groups" (That's PACS and Super PACS) accounted for about 24.7 million, and "Outside Interest groups" spent about 8 .5 million. Mayone is set up to be an Independent Expenditure Group.

edited 12th May '14 12:40:24 PM by Madrugada

Senator Ted Cruz claimed that Senate Democrats want to “repeal the first amendment” with a new amendment placing more limits on campaign finance that Cruz said is meant to muzzle people’s ability to speak out against bad government practices.

Because freedom is the ability of billionaires to buy elections.

Reposting from the General US Politics Thread:

Let's say you amend the constitution to forbid or strictly regulate political advertising. How would you word it so that people can't make attack ads against politicians they dislike, while still allowing programs like The Daily Show to attack politicians all they want?

How do comedy shows come under political advertising anyway? Unless it's being funded by a political party I don't see how it would be effected.