Rep Schiff: BREAKING: We've introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

[In It to Win It]

Adam Schiff
@RepAdamSchiff

BREAKING: We've introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and the irresponsible SCOTUS decisions that came before it.

Unrestricted dark money has no place in our elections or democracy. We need to return power to people. Once and for all.

Link to tweet

[PortTack]

1. That's great...sure wish they'd done it in the lame duck session!

[tritsofme]

2. I'm sure this exact amendment was introduced in the last Congress

and the one before that, etc.

It takes a 2/3 vote in both chambers to send an amendment to the states, nothing we could have done in the lame duck.

[world wide wally]

22. Did it take 2/3 passage to put this law into effect?

[tritsofme]

23. What law?

Citizens United was a court decision.

[world wide wally]

26. Based on "something".

I am wondering how this came to be, and why it takes a 2/3 vote to overrule it

[tritsofme]

28. They purported to be interpreting the Constitution.

So a new amendment would be required to change the Constitution, and the threshold for doing so is very high.

[mopinko]

29. it's an amendment to the constitution.

takes 2/3 of congress, and 2/3 of states.

[homegirl]

48. Please

an Amendment to which specific section of the Constitution?

[paleotn]

49. ???

Not exactly sure where you were going with that statements. Amendments don't necessarily apply to an existing section. Sometimes they do, like the 14th superseding the 3/5's clause. Sometimes they're simply additions like prohibition. Sometimes they're clarifications or guidance for judicial interpretation.

[reACTIONary]

60. The bill of rights...

... the first ten amendments, was not a change to any specific article.

[TigressDem]

74. It must pass House and Senate get signed by Biden and ratified by 2/3rd of states...

... to become the 28th Amendment.


Like the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
Like the 19th Amendment was women's right to vote.

First 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789.

Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution.

The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments.

Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. All 27 ratified and six unratified amendments are listed and detailed in the tables below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/resources/src/jquery.tablesorter.styles/images/sort_both.svg?0e440

[TigressDem]

76. See Wiki Link for full list of all proposed and ratified amendments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[tritsofme]

89. The president actually has no role in the amendment process.

He does not get an opportunity to veto.

[TigressDem]

91. Oh thanks.

I always thought it had to be a done deal by House/Senate and Prez before it went to the States.

But we don't get actual amendments that often so when I went through the quick read I added him in by thinking it has to be VERY thorough to be added.

But it does make sense if basically the States are the balance instead of the Executive.

[TigressDem]

75. No. Supreme Court found a loophole and created a mess with Citizens United.

Founding Fathers didn't think the highest court in the land would be so foolish.

SO we have to Amend The Constitution to CLARIFY that Corporations ARE NOT people and can not use their money to rig elections.

[Hortensis]

46. Yes, and other congresses since passage as well.

[AllyCat]

6. Yup.

[UTUSN]

3. Will it succeed in what's left of my lifetime?

[calimary]

5. Or mine?

We sure do need this - like many be at least a lifetime ago.

[paleotn]

51. I don't know. I never expected to see sexual orientation added to Title VII of the CRA.

but it happened in both our lifetimes.

[OMGWTF]

54. We passed the Amendment allowing 18 year-olds to vote

In a couple of months.

[UTUSN]

62. Lessee... the ERA started out in 1923...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

[BunkieBandit]

63. I don't think any amendments will pass with 2/3 majority

The GQP has divided this country, politicized morality, the right to abort, LGBTQ, and voting rights etc. Fill in the blanks, there are many more. Mr. President Joseph Biden, VP Kamala Harris and Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi have tried to unite this country. Only to be thwarted by fascists, gun toting gunslingers, anti women rights, homophobic nationalists.

[lindysalsagal]

4. THIS IS WHAT'S NEEDED TO REFORM ELECTION MADNESS!!!!!!!

I certainly hope they're got the votes. This pulls the floor out from underneath all the GQP wrong-doing. Serving the big donors instead of regular tax-paying americans is bad enough, but it's even worse when the donors are multi-national corporations. This is the best news I've heard in YEARS!!!!!!!

[Marius25]

7. Pretty meaningless sadly since it will never pass

[yaesu]

15. It has as much a chance of passing as Putin winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

But it will bring attention to how easy foreign money can buy off our politicians

[Woodwizard]

61. To who? The ones that care already know.

Walk up to the average person and ask them about Citizens United and see what happens. It is grandstanding and just gives a news cycle and makes a few people cheer about it.

And then NOTHING happens. Just a waste of legislative time.

[FakeNoose]

8. K & R - and may the sensible party prevail

[jimfields33]

21. 66 senators, 335 house votes, 2/3rd of the states? Heavy lift.

[SergeStorms]

35. Impossible lift, considering....

the number of fascist assholes sitting across the aisle who rely on Citizens United to buy their seats.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. 2/3rds Congress OR 2/3rds of states TO PROPOSE, but 3/4ths of the states TO RATIFY

LII U.S. Constitution Article V

Article V


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

9. While a good thing

I have a better chance of waking up on Mars tomorrow then this has of going anywhere.

[Auggie]

10. Dems are building their case for the next election IMO

[kimbutgar]

11. The Democrats can market this and say "aren't you tired of those campaign commercials"?

Paid for by millionaires who have the money and buy representatives that don’t care about you only their donors. Set the campaign period for only 6 months for off year elections and only beginning December 1st of the prior year for presidential elections.

I live in California but was in Pennsylvania and Arizona the election year and was appalled at the number of political ads there were!

[democrank]

12. Some may believe this won't pass but we must try

Staying silent and stepping back is no longer an option.

[Captain Zero]

34. I propose a 30% tax on PAC contributions

Republicans seem to like a 30% sales tax number. This could go into effect until the amendment is passed and ratified by the states.

[onetexan]

13. Umm...by "JOINT RESOLUTION" what does he mean?

are there any GOP House members behind it?

[progressoid]

19. Joint. Not bi-partisan.

That's my guess.

[former9thward]

24. Joint resolution of the House and Senate.

Constitutional amendments must be passed by both chambers with 2/3rds vote before sending them to the states.

[onetexan]

73. Gotcha. Thank you!

[ShazzieB]

14. I give the Democrats credit for having the audacity to do this.

I'm not optimistic about the outcome, but it's going to draw a lot of attention to a serious problem. Go Dems!

[Lonestarblue]

16. At the same time, Biden and Democrats should add four justices to the Supreme Court.

Then someone should bring a lawsuit challenging Citizens United with the hope of getting it overturned.

[bluestarone]

55. This is probably the only way

To handle Citizens United. No other way possible.

[Celerity]

78. Of course there is another (and easier) way. Expand the SCOTUS and reverse that horrid decision via

a case that allows it to be reversed.

[LudwigPastorius]

56. You can't sue the Court for a decision it has made.

The best you can do is to continue to make laws restricting corporate money on the hope that, some day, the SC will rule in favor of them when their constitutionality is inevitably challenged.

[LaMouffette]

17. Even though it won't pass, it's excellent that it will force Repubes to vote against it and Dems can

use the Repubes' votes as proof of their corruption during the next campaign cycle.

Same thing if the bill doesn't even get brought up for a vote.

[brooklynite]

27. No, it WON'T force Republicans to vote against it.

It will never be brought up for a vote, even in Committee. Just like Republican resolutions to Impeach Biden were never brought up last year.

[The Grand Illuminist]

39. Unfortunately you just can't change stupid.

Still way too many beyond evil people who will still elect them.

[LaMouffette]

44. Yeah, I've been thinking lately, what on God's green earth WOULD turn the mindless, brainwashed

Republican voters against the Party of Lies?

We can't wait for the Repubes to actually start setting puppies on fire (and even that wouldn't pry some Repub voters away from their party).

All I can think of is that if we could entice them over to our side with things they want. We're already doing this through social programs, but it's not sinking in with them that the Democrats are the ones responsible for things like the ACA and the great things provided through the Infrastructure Bill.

What kind of big, beautiful irresistible present could we wrap up in pretty wrapping paper with a big bow and a nice card that says:

TO: YOU!!!
FROM: THE DEMOCRATS!!!

Something they couldn't help but grudgingly accept.

Sadly, my first idea was "Guns, give them free guns and then they'll love the Dems!" But maybe, I don't know, free electric Ford F-150s? Free college education for themselves and their kids?

Anyway, just thinking "out loud." Have a good evening!

[BunkieBandit]

68. Most goobers in Gooberland, (Red States) know nothing

about Citizens United. Beating a dead horse.

[Rebl2]

18. That's going

nowhere. Should have done it when we had the house, but then it still wouldn’t have gone anywhere.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

20. This is pure theater.

I mean, it's good theater. But still theater.

[brooklynite]

25. And?

It won't pass the House.
It won't pass the Senate.
It won't get enacted by the States.

[Torchlight]

30. If nothing else, it gets the conversation going again

and brings this back out into our collective discussions. It may not succeed, but in this regard, even getting it into record is something I see as a positive.

[usonian]

31. The Overton window doesn't move all by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Congrats to Adam Schiff and others.
Do ya remember when California was ruled by Ronnie and "The Duke"?

https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/americas-paralyzed-politics-today-is-california-s-15-years-ago-5fc9c50eebc3

summary:

Why California Politics Is Always 15 Years Ahead
The Remarkably Prescient 15 Year Rule Means Trump & the National Republicans are on the Verge of a Spectacular Collapse
Peter Leyden
Oct 16, 2017
·

What do we mean by California is the future when applied to politics? Modern California politics has an uncanny knack of prefiguring what happens in the rest of America in about a 15-year timeline. In other words, what happened in California 15 years ago should be studied closely to see how it will play out in America today. And what’s happening now in California will roll out over America in the next 15 years.

California experiences the future earlier than other parts of the country. Californians invent many new technologies, adopt them early and adapt new systems around them relatively quickly. They absorb waves of immigrants at the highest numbers in the country and accommodate them into their society quicker. The state is a magnet for young people, entrepreneurs, and people who want to change the world. Much of the population is unusually open to trying new things in the economy, society, and in politics.

Prescient?

Lots more at the link. It's true.

[TygrBright]

38. EXACTLY. None of these efforts is "futile" even if they don't achieve stated goals. n/t

[SergeStorms]

40. If it's true....

then it's behind schedule.

The truth of the matter is there are more red states than blue states, and those red states want to go back in time 100 years, not forward.

[Hekate]

43. In actuality, more people vote blue than red. Gerrymandering & the Electoral College account for...

…much of the rightward swing of our legislatures and courts.

[LakeArenal]

92. Yep. It should always be brought up the Republicans DON'T GET MORE VOTES.

THEY CHEAT!!!!

Excuse the yelling.

[Hekate]

93. That sound you hear is me yelling in chorus with you

[aggiesal]

57. I told a cousin in Texas, as California goes, so goes the nation. n/t

[republianmushroom]

32. like it

[Mysterian]

33. This awful USSC decision accelerated greatly the demise of democracy in the USA

Money is not speech.

[peace.poet]

37. But corporations are people, my friend ... {sarcasm}

[SergeStorms]

41. My question has always been...

why do the people in those corporations get twice the representation of everyone else?

They're counted as individuals, like everyone else, but counted again as corporate "individuals". Twice the representation in the eyes of the Constitution? I don't think so.

Definitely one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the conservative Supreme Whores.

[HariSeldon]

59. This is actually the easier target

Citizens United said that, because corporations are people and people in the USA have free speech rights, therefore corporations have free speech rights. However, nothing in the Constitution says that corporations are people. Therefore, it only takes a law (meaning a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate after overcoming a filibuster -- 3/5ths at most -- and the President's signature) rather than a Constituional amendment (2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the state legislatures) to recategorize corporations as something other than "persons," to which campaign finance laws may be applied.

[Initech]

42. Citizens United was one of the worst decisions in this country's history!

[LymphocyteLover]

45. Any chance that any Rethugs will vote for it?

[Dr. Strange]

83. If it applies to everyone, then maybe?

A lot of people don't know the history of Citizens United, but the whole situation stemmed from Michael Moore releasing "Fahrenheit 9/11" during the 2004 election season. Citizens United went to the FEC to argue that that sort of thing was illegal and violated campaign financing laws. The FEC said no, it was fine. And so, four years later, Citizens United got into the act of releasing their own documentaries during the election season. The FEC told them they couldn't, which led to the Supreme Court decision.

If you tell Republicans that this new law could prevent Michael Moore from releasing documentaries right before elections, there just might be a chance that they'll get on board. Maybe?

[LymphocyteLover]

94. Thanks-- I forgot about that part.

But the main case was more about the conservative group Citizens United being able to run campaign ads with corporate funding in the 2008 primary. The conservative ad was in response to Moore's film Fahrenheit 911.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[HuskyOffset]

81. A constitutional convention is different from adding an amendment via congress

They're two completely separate paths for adding an amendment, doing this via congress doesn't trigger a constitutional convention.

[Prairie_Seagull]

84. Good morning, i will edit my post. in digging into this I find that both ways are true.

Although never used after the one we all know something about. If an amendment is brought up by the many states instead of the congress, a convention is called for.

Thanks for the update HuskyOffset.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[sanatanadharma]

50. After the first ten, no amendments were added to the Constitution, "What!? You don't say"

It seems the heavy lift has been done a number of times. Apparently everyone of them was a shoe-in.

[elias7]

52. Repubs should want this, what with George Soros out there

[Woodwizard]

53. Oh what great timing..................................

2 years of majority rule so lets put out something guaranteed to die. Yes I am cynical, been seeing this showboating crap for over 40 years of paying attention to politics.

So many say great things that go absolutely nowhere but a headline and a talking point for a few weeks. How many hours were put into this dead duck? Will it be brought back out when Dems have the majority again?

But hey makes a great tweet.

[Autumn]

58. We will all sprout wings and fly off this desolate planet before that happens.

[radalpha]

64. Why has it taken 13 years

This decision was corrupt from the first day. The destruction and corruption resulting from the decision has been profound, I hope it’s not too late.
Let’s hope that dealing with tax avoidance, monopolies, corrupt judges, election integrity, global warming, environmental pollution and truth in advertising doesn’t take 13 more.

[tritsofme]

71. Amendments like this have been introduced every year since the decision

It has to be introduced in each new Congress.

[Takket]

65. gotta start somewhere......

look at gay marriage which was widely opposed until people kept pushing it out there in public conscience and opinions changed in only 10 years or so...

what's useless is if they unveil this bill and then just never talk about it again. they need to get people talking about how bad this is for America so they start pressuring their elected representatives. Make no mistake if the Democrats are serious about this it is a 10+ year long journey, not one bill.

[ificandream]

66. I don't hold much hope, but I hope this works.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

67. Yay!! About time

Get those rich bigot slimy covert fuckers!

[myohmy2]

69. sounds good...

...within 7 years...

...with pukes around, we'd be lucky to have it ratified within 7 lifetimes...

...I'm still waiting for my lame-duck Medicare vision and dental ...

[Hekate]

70. Best of luck

[GenThePerservering]

77. Yes!

Get the ball rolling - the naysayers here may groan that it woooon't woooorrrrk..., but anything worth doing takes effort and persistence.

[Silent3]

79. Nice performance art

I mean, I guess it's a nice aspirational gesture, but even in the best of times for bipartisan cooperation passing Constitutional amendments is a long shot.

And, as I suspect many of you may have noticed, we're a bit far from the best of such times.

[Karma13612]

82. This is great hon, but it won't get past

The printer.

Should have been tried before you lost the majority.

No? Or am I missing something?

[tritsofme]

90. It was introduced in the last Congress also.

But similarly did not have the votes to go anywhere. It takes 2/3 vote in both chambers to send it to the states, so I’m not sure why you think the change in majority is at all relevant.

[tavernier]

85. Isn't there anything they can spend time on

that will actually pass? Probably not with this Congress.

[SouthernDem4ever]

86. I hope they keep introducing it every year

until we get a house and senate with enough reps that truly care about this country.

[Jimbo S]

87. Keep after it.

Probably my top three issues at the federal level: Citizens United, budget deficit, threats on democracy.

[Martin68]

88. If the ERA couldn't pas, neither will this.