Alaska Democrats introduce resolution against unlimited campaign spending.

[Blue_In_AK]

I don't know how far they'll get with this, but at least they're trying.

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/01/2294279/democrats-introduce-resolution.html

JUNEAU -- Alaska Democratic lawmakers Wednesday proposed a move toward amending the U.S. Constitution to ban unlimited third-party spending in campaigns.

The resolution is a direct response to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts to outside groups in support of or in opposition to candidates for office. The court decision gave rise to so-called super PACs, the likes of which have made a mark during the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Alaska and are having an impact on the U.S. presidential race.

The resolution, introduced in both the House and Senate, would urge the president and Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to ban such unlimited spending.

It's a long shot -- two-thirds of each the U.S. House and U.S. Senate would need to pass a proposed amendment, and three-quarters of states would have to ratify it -- but Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, and lead sponsor of SJR13, said other states will take notice if the Alaska Legislature takes the first step and passes the resolution.

<snip>

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/02/01/2294279/democrats-introduce-resolution.html#storylink=cpy

[gopiscrap]

1. I applaud them but...

it will get overturned in the fucking SCOTUS

[HopeHoops]

3. The USSC cannot overturn a ratified amendment - they can fuck it up in other ways.

I don't agree with a lot of the recent decisions, but they can't just say "that amendment is un-constitutional". They simply ignore the content of the amendment when it is contrary to the wishes of their corporate sponsors.

[Confusious]

4. If it becomes an admentment to the constitution

It can't be. We could put "dogs are people too" in the constitution, and it can't be overturned, except by another amendment to the constitution.

The SCOTUS would have to choke on it.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Exactly.

And nothing would make me happier than seeing them choke.

[HopeHoops]

2. It's a start.

[roguevalley]

5. yay us, Blue! I don't know anyone who will be against it here.

[Arctic Dave]

7. I cannot speak highly enough about Bill.

I hope he runs against Parnell.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. I know.

He's really remarkable, courageous in a quiet and charming way. I would LOVE to see him take on Parnell. That would be epic.

It sounds like no one's going to challenge The Don, sadly. Wouldn't you think he'd want to retire at 78 or however old he is?

[HuckleB]

8. THis is good.... -eom-