After months of delay, the Massachusetts Senate, in overwhelming bipartisan vote of 35-1, for an amendment to restore democracy by overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. Attention now turns to the House as the end of the legislative session approaches.
Click here to tell your Representative to vote for the resolution.
The 2010 Citizens United decision overturned decades-old laws restricting corporate expenditures, ruling that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The decision dramatically expanded the fabricated “corporate rights” doctrine and has unleashed a flood of corporate money into federal, state, and local elections.
Senator Jamie Eldridge, lead sponsor of the bill, had this to say:
“The Citizens United decision dramatically dilutes the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. The health of our democracy and the integrity of our political system are at stake, and I am proud of the Senate for passing this resolution today and sending a strong message that our democracy isn’t for sale.”
Cities and towns across the Commonwealth have voted on similar measures. To date, 68 communities have voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment including Boston, Springfield and Worcester. If a similar resolution is passed by the House, Massachusetts will join the state legislatures in California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont in voicing their states’ opposition to the decision and support for a Constitutional Amendment to address its ramifications.
To learn more, visit: www.commoncause.org, www.FreeSpeechForPeople.org, www.DemocracyIsForPeople.org and www.United4thePeople.org.
Professor Lawrence Lessig has been one of the biggest proponents of the constitutional convention strategy. Recently he introduced a nuanced interpretation of the convention strategy with what he calls “citizens conventions.”
Lessig’s Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee
It seems much simpler, and more likely to succeed, to bypass Congress entirely. That’s my proposal.
That’s what I thought Sen. Eldridge indicated to me when I spoke with him about it a while back. Plus, David, are you sure that such a convention can propose anything? Article V doesn’t seem clear to me on that. I would submit that 2/3 of the states could pass resolutions specifically calling a convention for the purpose of considering amendments relative to campaign finance, or even to instruct that only the following proposal be considered: (insert exact proposed language here). Otherwise you run the risk of delegates pulling the same trick they did in Philadelphia in 1787 and throw out the original document entirely, contrary to instructions.
“call for a constitutional convention limited to the Citizens United issue.”
I don’t think an open-ended call for a convention would be a good idea.
As I read Eldridge’s proposal, it calls for the Congress to approve an amendment that would then be sent to the states for ratification. That’s what seems to me to have no chance of getting anywhere.
On the wiki page for constitutional conventions (cant
Link on iphone) it mentions there have been more than enough states to force a balanced budget amendment but the courts are not sure if discussion can be limited to just one amendment. Conventions might have to be open ended as the first one was. I’ll defer to your legal expertise but I’m not so certain what you propose is possible.
It’s never been tried, so nobody knows what the rules are. The wikipedia article I found said that the 2/3 threshold for a balanced budget amendment has not yet been reached (it’s 2 short). One source argues that “the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.” IMHO that’s the only way to get any action on this topic.
I jumped to the last sentence of the promotion.
😉
And if enough states do this, what you are suggesting becomes far, far more likely. When SCOTUS gets the meaning of the law and its impact so wrong (of course in my view Montana’s Supreme Court got it right), as with the Dred Scott decision, amending the constitution – however it is done – is the solution and in this issue, massive public and support, including from our elected representatives, is the required precursor.
Also overturning that Montana decision shows how radical the court has become, reactionary might be the stronger and more appropriate word. Overturned a law overwhelmingly passed by Congress in Citizens and then threw fealty to precedence, states rights, and public opinion out the window with the Montana ruling. There are no originalists on the court, just right wing judicial activists.
The Dred Scott decision was announced on March 6, 1857. It took eleven long years and a civil war for the first effective response to the Dred Scott decision to happen — the thirteenth amendment, outlawing slavery, was adopted on December 6, 1865. Its constitutional reverberations still echo throughout the land — the 24th amendment, forbidding poll taxes, was adopted in January of 1964 (more than a hundred years after Dred Scott), and the dark side STILL aggressively pursues voterID laws (which should be illegal under the 24th amendment unless free ID is made available to each and every voter).
I agree that massive public support is a required precursor. The Occupy movement is a HUGE player in this (arguably the driving player). I strongly suspect that the realistic and imminent threat of a second civil (or perhaps revolutionary) war between the 99% and the 1% will be needed.
The 1% will not voluntarily remove this foot against the throat of the 99%. The political process can bring this about without violence only when the oppressors recognize that effective non-violent change is the only way to avoid a violent revolution that they will lose anyway.
In this regard, the unfolding of events in Egypt, Libya and Syria is highly instructive.
This state Senate action on Citizens United is simply political theater.
It would be far more important for the Senate to pass the Election Reform Act, which already passed the House. That act includes pre-registration of 17 year olds, and random audits of vote counting machines. A majority of state senators favor the legislation.
But, our Senate President, Terry Murray will not allow that bill to come to the floor for debate and vote. She’s afraid of the Voter ID debate, because she comes from Plymouth, which is conservative.
Terry Murray is a profile in Cowardice.