Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The Anti-Citizens United resolution

By

The awesome Senator Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Cory Atkins have introduced a resolution in the lege, deploring Citizens United and the corruption of politics by the tsunami of corporate cash. There are fourteen co-sponsors between the Senate and the House. We need more.

Bill Text: MA Senate Bill 772 – 187th General Court.

RESOLUTIONS

WHEREAS, THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS;

WHEREAS, FOR THE PAST THREE DECADES, A DIVIDED UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS TRANSFORMED THE FIRST AMENDMENT INTO A POWERFUL TOOL FOR CORPORATIONS SEEKING TO EVADE AND INVALIDATE DEMOCRATICALLY-ENACTED REFORMS;

WHEREAS, THIS CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS REACHED ITS EXTREME CONCLUSION IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RECENT RULING IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC;

WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC OVERTURNED LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT PROHIBITING CORPORATIONS FROM SPENDING THEIR GENERAL TREASURY FUNDS IN OUR ELECTIONS;

WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC WILL NOW UNLEASH A TORRENT OF CORPORATE MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS UNMATCHED BY ANY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE TOTALS IN UNITED STATES HISTORY;

WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC PRESENTS A SERIOUS AND DIRECT THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY;

WHEREAS, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE PREVIOUSLY USED THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS TO CORRECT THOSE EGREGIOUSLY WRONG DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT GO TO THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND SELF-GOVERNMENT;

NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HEREBY CALLS UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

And indeed there is such a proposed amendment.

This is how things begin. Let us begin.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. As far as I know there is not a minimum requirement in order for an item to begin its journey through the legislative process. I’ve never like the idea of attaching your name just so you can share the credit; simply voting for it when the time comes should be enough. IMO, only those who huddled together to actually help craft the language or do the research behind a piece of legislation should be allowed to be credited as cosponsors.

    • because nobody wants to bring something to the floor unless you think it will pass. Cosponsoring is more or less a pledge that you’ll vote for something if it makes it to the floor in its current form (of course, some pledges are honored and some are not).

      It’s a similar philosophy to the way fundraisers manage a $10 million campaign: you don’t actually announce it publicly until you’ve got at least $5 million already pledged.

  4. More sponsors are better not because they are required, but because of the positive impact of the bandwagon effect. That all being said, I have seen sponsors slink off into the shadows as soon as leadership says “boo” – as happened time after time in support for the courts and the 6th Amendment Bar (which has been seriously betrayed, not that there is much interest in that story, or that “that story” is a large one in the scheme of things though it was a turning point for me personally in many ways).

    But more sponsors never hurts and might help. But trust not in sponsors, and letters to the Editor in support, calls to talk shows, calls to your own legislators, and yes, good posts like this one all do make an incremental difference.

Archives