General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTOMORROW THE SENATE VOTES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WILL OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATORS AND LET THEM KNOW THEY NEED TO VOTE YES
https://secure2.convio.net/comcau/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=251
It won't fix everything but it's sure a good start.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)spanone
(135,846 posts)alfredo
(60,074 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)But damn, I hope not
alfredo
(60,074 posts)dballance
(5,756 posts)I know there are a lot of arcane parliamentary rules and procedures in the Senate. I'm sure that if McConnell can use one of them to stop a vote then he will do so.
I hope Harry Reid beats McConnell back on every front though. He finally realized there was no possibility to work with the GOP and changed the filibuster rules. He should do the same now if necessary.
marym625
(17,997 posts)but it's a cool little video from teh Democratic Senate site
http://democrats.senate.gov/
I don't think he can.
Here's another link on the amendment though and it has links to contact your senators
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/04/1327179/-Senate-to-vote-on-repealing-Citizens-United-Monday-Something-you-can-do-that-will-take-5-minutes#
dballance
(5,756 posts)Harry Reid still controls the Senate and what bills get brought up for a vote. He'd be wise to bring up a bill in support of a Constitutional Amendment that would thwart Citizens United. It would be great to get the GOP Senators running for re-election this November on-record with their votes.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I don't think that is just wishful thinking either.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)Republican would vote for it. They fear McConnell and the Koch Bros more than they fear the voters.
dballance
(5,756 posts)The problem for the GOP and McConnell is that they will have to vote on the bill. I'm quite certain you are correct again when you say no Republican will vote for it. Requiring the Republicans to go on-record with a "Nay" vote for a bill/amendment that would reign in the power of the 1% is a good strategy for the Democrats. Every single Democrat running against a Republican who voted "Nay" will have the ability to tell voters just how corrupt with money the GOP is.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)defending our democratic system.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)right now its perfectly legal and easy for them to accept their payoffs.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)them to stay bought.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)mulsh
(2,959 posts)n/t
stage left
(2,962 posts)I sent an email to my senators, marym, but it won't do any good. One of them is that well known asshole, Lindsay Graham. He will probably be leading any filibuster against this bill. The other is Tim Scott, that well known...well saying what I think he is would probably get me my first hide.
marym625
(17,997 posts)and you don't need to actually say it. We all know
RoverSuswade
(641 posts)"Tim Clarence Thomas Alan Keyes Ron Christie Uncle Tom Kenneth Blackwell Herman Cain Scott?"
marym625
(17,997 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)And then I wonder how quickly the leaders in our party will then be out there campaigning for them against a more progressive primary opponent while at the same time whining that we need more and better Democrats in the Senate.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)For not having to vote on this issue and go on record.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Cloture needs 60 votes, passage needs 67.
Best tactic for McConnell (assuming he cares nothing about the country and everything about partisan politics, an assumption I feel very comfortable about) would be to not filibuster, and give permission to some vulnerable Republicans to vote Yea when their Nay votes aren't needed.
For example, Mark Kirk (R-IL) represents a blue state, won by only 2% last time, and is up for re-election in 2016. It wouldn't surprise me if the amendment were to get Yea votes from a few Republicans like him, just not enough to pass.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)On recod voting against the measure.
Even if it passes the Senate it will not come to the floor in the house.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Kirk has done that before. Wouldn't be surprised
Reter
(2,188 posts)Constitutional Amendments can not be filibustered.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and so does the ACLU.
marym625
(17,997 posts)"Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the
press.''.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Unless you want to claim that publishing a book or a movie isn't actually 'press'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/227981894/6-3-14-Udall-Amendment-Letter-FINAL
Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clintons forthcoming memoir Hard Choices were she to run for office;
Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a climate change denier;
Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party;
A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;
A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors;
A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions; and
Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats).
Response to X_Digger (Reply #84)
marym625 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)That Justice JP Stevens doesn't know what this will mean to the Even pressure across the pudendum as a whole, but that he would want an amendment passed that would infringe on our civil rights further.
Good to know
And by the way, absolutely nothing close to Murdoch anywhere in anything I said
marym625
(17,997 posts)And since the initial comment regarding the ACLU being against it, I have been researching their reasons. I do have concerns. I normally would have done better due diligence but never believed that Common Cause and other liberal organizations would be in direct conflict with the ACLU over something so important.
I don't believe that this will pass. I do believe that the vote itself will help bring to the forefront those who are more concerned with getting their money than the welfare of their constituency.
I am contacting Common Cause, Senators Udall and Durbin and the ACLU. I don't want to say more than I have without an understanding as to how these groups can be at odds on this. I don't expect to actually get information from all but I am trying.
Although it was only a couple times, I have not always agreed with the ACLU. I don't want to just do so now without a clearer understanding.
I greatly appreciate the information you and Nye Bevan posted.
marym625
(17,997 posts)No answer from Common Cause, the ACLU or Udall's office yet. Best I can say is the office is attaching the ACLU's letter to a message and will "personally hand" to the Senator. Very odd they were not familiar. Me not being familiar is one thing, but a cosponsor of the Amendment? Hmmm. Or, maybe that was an easy way to duck the concerns.
I still stand by the fact a vote will help.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Common Cause responded, in part:
"here's the most important thing: we live in a democracy. We have the ability to amend the constitution based on the will of the people. And 75% of Americans clearly support the amendment. Common Cause and the other organizations working on this didn't come up with this issue or this campaign. We are simply acting on the will of the people, and that's what democracy is about.
Take a look at this op-ed and see what you think: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/216809-bipartisan-case-for-a-constitutional-amendment-on-campaign-finance "
The Op-Ed, in part:
"Critics have claimed that the amendment would repeal the First Amendments free speech protections. But it does the exact opposite the proposal is an effort to restore the First Amendment so that it applies equally to all Americans. When a few billionaires can drown out the voices of millions of Americans, we cant have any real political debate.
The amendment would not simply benefit one party or incumbent. It is similar to bipartisan proposals introduced in nearly every Congress since 1983, when Republican Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska) was the lead sponsor. Over the years, it has been supported by many Republicans, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), and Nancy Kassebaum (Kan.), as well as many Democrats."
An article about the testimony by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-supreme-court-stevens-congress-money-speech-20140430-story.html
and the testimony
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4497080/justice-stevens-senate-testimony
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If 75% of the population supported bringing back slavery, would you support it?
marym625
(17,997 posts)I had to take out portions of the email because it contained things I can't quote. I guess I shouldn't have quoted at all.
I posted other links that show how what SOME of the ACLU members are saying is not what all believe. I also posted testimony from Justice John Paul Stevens for the Amendment. No one will ever convince me he would want something that would hinder civil liberties.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Stevens wrote the opinion, so it's not like he signed on as a 'me too' vote.
marym625
(17,997 posts)You have your mind set and I have mine. I thank you for bringing information to my attention. It caused me to doubt then do much more, deeper research. That researched confirmed my original position and included speaking to members of the ACLU.
I don't believe this will ever get through. But the conversation is nothing but good. I believe that corporations need to have the protection of the Constitution they deserve. None.
But I believe that this is a good Amendment.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The unintended consequences that naive but well-meaning idiots can never foresee will always come around and bite you in the ass.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I don't believe that is an issue here. I am not even close to an idiot, but thanks for your words.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Your anger when trying to convince people of something is a real turn off. Won't help you in your endeavors. Especially when speaking to people that want the same end.
Peace
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. I might rise to the level of pissed.
"Where'd that baby go? It was in the bathwater just a minute ago before I threw it out..."
marym625
(17,997 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)I wish I could attach the article but I was sent it privately and you have to be a member of to go to it. But I can tell you that the ACLU members do not agree. There is a HUGE disagreement on this. HUGE.
Also, Justice John Paul Stevens (retired) testified before Congress in favor of the Amendment. I put the link in this branch of this thread
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I get messages from him every day about this.
Martin Heinrich is also a good man.
We just need to get rid of Susana who will sell New Mexico to the Koches.
marym625
(17,997 posts)makes no sense to me. That kind of greed
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)to feel SPECIAL by inclusion in the big boys club. Starstruck, to be
considered so important, they become useful tools. Sometimes it's
about greed but I think it's mostly pathetic egomania.
marym625
(17,997 posts)The power, or what they perceive as power, becomes part of the greed. But more about the money
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)That's all anybody really wants.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Find better ways than to take enormous amounts of money and screwing constituents.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and being convinced they are doing good
when doing the bidding of their owners.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I don't. Maybe some but I think the majority just don't care.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)From my senators.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)can't hurt.
caveat:
this advice coming to you from somebody (me)who almost never
makes a phone call for any reason. But I do write emails
and sign petitions.
certainot
(9,090 posts)the university of NM was pushed to commit to finding apolitical alternatives for broadcasting their lobos games
it's hurting, and they would have to go to alternative programming without the lobos logo for community cred and advert appeal.
https://sites.google.com/site/universitiesforrushlimbaugh/
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)one day I will ask him to turn it down.
certainot
(9,090 posts)correct about (he's 99.7 % right though!) bush, iraq, wall st deregulation, etc.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)The call was diverted to the Koch Brothers.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)They're getting pretty cocky!
Good one! Laughed my ass off!
madokie
(51,076 posts)you reckon it would do me any good to call either? I don't
When the vote is posted I'll bet that both of them have voted against it.
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)I know the feeling....
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)That's not solely a Republican thing. Though it surely is more their thing than dems.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)As long as I get 800 points
stage left
(2,962 posts)Sadly.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I can think of lots of things.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)He is a rabid weasel.
Brown will vote for it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Called both Senators and the WH
marym625
(17,997 posts)Hee hee.
Awesome!
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Thanks for the thread, marym.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Uncle Joe!
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)For whatever it's worth
Honored Members of the Senate.
I ask you to please defend our country and vote in favor of Joint Resolution 19.
If you eject "We the people" from the system specifically designed to rest comfortably on their shoulders; if you turn our shared support that holds our government upright in a common yoke to drag the gargantuan wealth of a few uphill into a future which offers little hope of redemption; you cast aside the entire basis for our country in the first place.
Why fight a war to reject masters who rule by the Divine Right of Kings, to just replace them with masters who rule by the Sublime Right of Money? Why have masters at all?
Thanking you in advance
"Half-Century Man
marym625
(17,997 posts)I would k&r that if you could to comments on a thread.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,693 posts)But I sent it, anyway.
Thanks!
There are probably even some dems who voted only because they knew the house wouldn't.
Sometimes I think they just take turns covering each other's butts, so that half the time they're the bad guys but half the time they're good.
It's all bs, except for Warren.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)
This is why. But we don't have one, so :pray:
marym625
(17,997 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)That might work.
Segami
(14,923 posts)OR IN PERSON..........
That cone of silence looks very uncomfortable.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,663 posts)alp227
(32,034 posts)I say "independent progressive" since I KNOW the party establishment has too little courage to face the issue. This vote will put senators on record whether they support the corrupt political system as it is or are willing to stand up for the right thing.
Response to alp227 (Reply #69)
marym625 This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Amendment may never pass but the record on the vote will be nearly as important. Nearly
Nobel_Twaddle_III
(323 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)LoisB
(7,208 posts)tritsofme
(17,380 posts)TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)eallen
(2,953 posts)People tend to overlook the fact that Citizens United was a 1st amendment case. It was about a corporation that wanted to make and distribute a movie.
The proposed amendment says this in section 3: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press."
In short, it would have zero impact on the Citizens United ruling.
It likely would lead to the McCutcheon ruling being overturned. Which would be a good thing. But that's a different case and the issue there is caps on political donations.
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)who was once a Democratic Ohio State Senator, said wording legislation is so difficult because you have to leave as little room for misinterpretation as possible to avoid unintended consequences. This is especially true of an amendment.
I agree though the fact that it would likely overturn McCutcheon would be a major step in the correct direction.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Any group spending money will just declare themselves "the press", and bob's your uncle.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)From https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text
``Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.
``Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may
distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other
artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such
entities from spending money to influence elections.
``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the
press.''.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I should have included that. I appreciate you did.
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)what constitutes "press"is where this could get unintentionally dicey.
eallen
(2,953 posts)Were the courts to get actively involved in saying what constitutes the press, or what constitutes a legitimate religion, that would quickly remove the wind from the sails of the 1st amendment.
The Supreme Court has recognized this.
So, for the most part, it takes just about any religious belief seriously. Even Scientology. And any corporation, individual, or group that wants to publish something counts as part of "the press."
Doing so does not mean that the court thinks companies are people. It means that it recognizes "the press" is meant to be a more expansive concept than just individuals. I.e., the 1st amendment was meant to protect not just individual speech, but also newspapers, magazines, and other outlets, that were commercial companies even at the time of the founding.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)I.e. as applied to DU -
Does DU's everyday, ongoing operations "spend money to influence elections"? Who is the arbiter of that question?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Thanks for this.
world wide wally
(21,745 posts)People. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the USA
marym625
(17,997 posts)I know there are a bunch of things that happened to cause this. But when we legally threw civil liberties out the window, we started nailing the coffin shut.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)lark
(23,123 posts)This and repealing the Voting Rights Act should be seen together as the Repug ploy to permanently change the country for the good of the 1% and to screw the 99%. Repugs would never vote to stop Citizens United - it is their wet dream come to life.
but the vote alone will help with the election. True colors will be seen (by some) that are blind to it now. THEN we have a chance for the change
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Since the thread is not listed anywhere anymore. But I wanted to congratulate everyone that filled out the form, called, emailed, shared, etc. I truly believe we made a difference.
YAY DUers!