There’s strong voter support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow restrictions on corporate spending, according to a poll conducted by PPP and paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Ryan Grim of HuffPost has reported:
Nearly a fifth of voters remain undecided on an issue that has only been live since the Supreme Court overturned a century of legislation and precedent in a 5-4 ruling whose effect was visible to anybody with a television through the months of September and October. Of those who have an opinion, 46 percent said that “Congress should consider drastic measures such as a constitutional amendment overturning the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections,” while 36 percent disagreed. The survey, which was provided to The Huffington Post, was conducted by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling on November second and third and reached 548 voters.
A Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. But, said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the author of an amendment that would overturn Citizens United, there have been times in American history when amendments have caught fire and ripped right through the land. “The process is very rigorous, and it should be,” Edwards told HuffPost. “But there have been plenty of examples of amendments to the Constitution that have happened, actually, with fairly rapid-fire when they catch on.”
Edwards, an attorney, said she wrote the simple text of her amendment the night that Citizens United was handed down. “I really concluded that the Supreme Court actually put the challenge out to us, here in the Congress. They said, you know, you could make a judgment that this is not really good for the system, but the fact is that the Constitution doesn’t allow you to regulate this. Congress, you have no– the Court told us directly– Congress, you have no authority to regulate. And when the Court says that so directly, it only leaves us one choice,” said Edwards.
In the Senate, John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have both gotten behind the effort. “Max Baucus and I, probably, if we had to serve in the same body, we probably don’t agree on a whole bunch of stuff. But on this, he really gets it,” said Edwards.
“Max is always willing to work with anyone toward the common goal of making sure Montanans’ voices don’t get drowned out by out-of-control corporate campaign donations,” said Kate Downen, a Baucus spokeswoman.
Adam Green, cofounder of the PCCC, sees the amendment as a winning political issue. “It’s time to stop thinking small-bore. The solution to Citizens United is not merely disclosure, it’s to overturn Citizens United — and even last November’s Republican-skewed electorate agrees,” Green said.
The article goes on to note the barriers such an amendment would face: the parties’ reliance on corporate spending, the GOP takeover of 19 legislative chambers in the midterms, but continues:
But, said Edwards, Democrats need to embrace the idea that the Constitution is a political ground worth fighting on. “A lot of progressives are not accustomed to using the mechanisms of the Constitution. The right has used– has tried to do that an awful lot of times on a whole range of different things in state legislatures and across the board. And as progressives, we’re not accustomed to doing that, and this is one instance, though, where the populist demand is there, and our energy and our policy has to match that demand and a Constitutional amendment does that.”
And it notes:
The amendment has strong support from law professors and former attorneys general.
But one more thing ought to be noted: the barrier of GOP obstructionism on this issue could actually be turned into a blessing–although it won’t be easy to do, at least at first. During the last election, big business managed quite successfully to channel Tea Partiers populist rage at the government, not them. And this won’t be a hard trick to replicate in the future for most of the hardcore ideologues. But repealing Citizens United and directly confronting the untrammeled, anti-democratic power of big business could be just the thing to wreck havoc with the Tea Party narrative for the broader public. Having a clearly-defined fight over a Constitutional amendment to take back our democracy from big business would provide a constant narrative backdrop for all manner of corporate abuses, such as recent revelations of how fiercely the health insurance industry fought against health care reform. There is a real opportunity here–and if it does catch fire, as Donna Edwards points out if possible, that opportunity could huge. The only question is whether we’re willing to think big enough to take advantage of it.
Are we ready to start thinking big?
|
