Congress (Finally) Considers Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

money, politics
Protest against Citizens United in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 9, 2014. Photo credit: Joe Brusky / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)
Reading Time: 3 minutesProtecting Out Vote 2020

Most Americans agree on background checks for gun purchases, lower prescription drug prices, and the need to take on climate change. But for years, an army of lobbyists and unrestricted outside political spending by corporations have blocked nearly every attempt to make these things happen.

A big reason for this, argues Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), is the the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which he says has resulted in “the corrosion of our democracy.” The Supreme Court’s ruling notably allowed corporations to create super political action committees (PACs), which are not required to disclose their donors, and spend billions of dollars in US elections.

A growing number of Americans want to get money out of politics. Nearly seven in 10 Americans support a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United, according to a 2018 study by the University of Maryland School of Public Policy’s Program for Public Consultation. Now that almost 20 states and more than 800 local governments have called for a constitutional amendment that places reasonable limits on corporate campaign contributions, some members of Congress appear to be listening.

Democratic lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties made the case during a hearing Thursday that Citizens United must be overturned, while the panel’s Republicans praised the ruling as a way for Americans to pool their resources and have a greater voice.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) argued that Citizens United did not strengthen anyone’s right to free speech. Instead, Raskin contended, the ruling worked to transform “every corporate treasury in America into a potential political slush fund, and thereby authorize and empower the CEOs of corporations to spend whatever they wanted of other people’s money … in political campaigns.” In fact, corporate spending has come under greater scrutiny since the 2016 election because some of the largest corporations in the United States are partially owned by noncitizen foreign nationals.

New Frontline in Battle for Campaign Finance Reform

The Unholy Trinity of Illegal Campaign Coordination

Perhaps unintentionally, the issue of big-dollar donors resulted in the referencing of Democratic presidential candidate and former mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg. When asked to name 10 of the 25 biggest spenders in US elections, Robert Weissman, president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said he could name the top two: Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, and Bloomberg.

Ellen Weintraub, a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission (FEC), offered the committee a number of steps that Congress could immediately take to stop the bombardment of cash in US elections. These include extending the ban on foreign-national contributions to ballot measures and reforming the financing of inaugural committees. HR 1, known as the For the People Act, has been waiting for a vote in the Senate for one year. That bill imposes stronger disclosure requirements about donors from super PACs, and establishes publicly funded campaigns.

Coordination between political campaigns and outside organizations has long been a concern for campaign finance reform advocates, but Citizens United allowed the issue to escalate to new heights. The rules banning such coordination “have been rendered meaningless by a broken [FEC] that has not punished anyone for coordinating since the Citizens United decision,” according to a recent report by the political reform group Issue One.

Another idea long-championed by Weintraub is strengthening disclosure requirements for online political advertisements to highlight how the democratic process can be subverted. Notable examples include Russia’s intelligence agency’s purchase of Facebook advertisements during the 2016 presidential election with rubles — its own currency. Since then, Facebook has tried to make amends for the misinformation that campaign finance reform experts blame it for propagating. The social media giant has created an ad “library” so users can see who bought advertisements and the demographics targeted. The problem, however, is that the database is confusing and gives researchers more headaches than answers when trying to navigate it.

In her opening statement, Weintraub also took the opportunity to remind Congress that the federal election watchdog agency remains toothless. Because the Senate has failed to confirm a fourth commissioner, the FEC is without a quorum, rendering it unable to issue advisory opinions, vote on enforcement measures, or hold a meeting since September 2019. More than 300 cases are still pending at the FEC, and Weintraub argued that “the clock is ticking on a number of cases.”

“And, while I know this is not within the House’s purview, the FEC could really use some new commissioners to restore our quorum and let us do our jobs,” Weintraub said. “So, tell your friends.”


Related front page panorama photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Chris Christian / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

7 responses to “Congress (Finally) Considers Amendment to Overturn Citizens United”

  1. robert e williamson jr says:

    Pete the real problem is there is absolutely no difference in two major political parties of the U.S. and it’s killing the country.

    The dark money problem goes all the way back to the 1950’s when the CIA openly advocated using private money for its funding. Read the book – it provides some very useful history for you.

  2. robert e williamson jr says:

    Peter, no person is as blind as the sighted person who can see but fails to do so. Here is some help for your vision.

    First there is truth in what you write, let us not distort what really happened here though. The SCOTUS ruling was the direct result of an overly activist court.

    For your edification you may want to read Jane Mayer 2016 book “Dark Money” in which she details the real problems with dark money.

    Or you can keep your hands over your eyes.

  3. Peter says:

    This ruling is not because of Citizens United…. it goes back to Michael Moore and the liberal dark money he used to make his documentaries, backed by Sony and other corporations, including Weisman. Watch the episode on Full Measure, you’re getting mad at the wrong org. It’s the liberals who want dark money, like Hillary.

  4. robert e williamson jr says:

    Paul, the Illinois state workerd pension mess was created when the state legislature here passed the amendment that the state workers pension be funded, ” at their *discretion*”, as a result the funding was diverted at times.

    A word to the wise, nuff said.

    Thanks Again!

  5. robert e williamson jr says:

    Thank you so much Paul for the info.

    Here is one “good man”, the country needs many many more.

  6. Bob Schumacher says:

    Very interesting. This is good information. I looked at both of these resolutions and 48 is truly the real one. I did notice that after looking at all the reps that support the resolutions, there is only 1 Republican on the list. I would be interested in seeing “which” Democratic elites support only res 2. Are they only supporting it because they know that they can’t keep up without the corporate money? Is it some sort of PR move because they don’t believe 48 will ever pass? Either way it is still a telling fact that corporate campaign finance has no Republican support.

  7. People should be aware that there are competing draft constitutional amendments to cure Citizens United.

    H.J.R.2 is supported by Democratic Party elites. It simply grants *discretion* to Congress and the States to regulate election campaign finance, including forbidding corporations from contributing. It has no application to ballot measures, only elections. https://preview.tinyurl.com/vvgfhdj

    H.J.R.48 rises from the grassroots and is much stronger. It abolishes constitutional rights for corporations, returning the nation to the paradigm where corporations had only legal privileges, not rights. It grants no discretion, *requiring* that “Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of that person’s money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.” https://preview.tinyurl.com/vwqedbf

    The mandatory nature of H.J.R.48 combined with its enforceable standard creates a citizen right that can be enforced by citizens in the courts. It has language that can force contributed money out of elections and ballot measures. We know from history before Citizens United that mere discretion to regulate campaign finance in Congress utterly failed to keep money out of politics.

    Democratic Party elites talk about getting the money out of politics but H.J.R.2 puts the lie to those claims. They just want themselves to have the power to regulate campaign finance. They do not want to do away with corrupt system that puts their votes in Congress up for sale to the highest bidder.

    If you want to get the money out of politics, support the Move to Amend Amendment, H.J.R.48., and the Move to Amend organization. https://movetoamend.org/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.