Senate Votes 79-18 To Advance a Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United

[minivan2]

Last edited Mon Sep 8, 2014, 09:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Politicus USA

By a vote of 79-18, Senate voted to advance a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United.

The amendment read,

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.’

Yesterday, before the Senate vote, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said, “The major issue of our time is whether the United States of America retains its democratic foundation or whether we devolve into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires are able to control our political process by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests.”

Read more: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/08/senate-votes-79-18-advance-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html

---

Well this is good news, unfortunately has no chance of getting through the house.

Edit: apparently it has just one more hurdle in the senate and then it goes to the house. They just need to vote one more time and they say it won't pass.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. That was unexpected.

[rhett o rick]

4. I think the Republicans that voted for it are counting on the HoR to vote it down. nm

[riqster]

55. Repubs can't vote it down without some Vichy Dems. It passed the cloture vote.

[JimDandy]

87. Dems need a 2/3rds majority vote

to pass it out of the Senate. Repubs can easily vote it down all by themselves under those circumstances.

[Bartlet]

56. Pretty sure

This doesn't say anything about the amendment passing the senate and certainly isn't misleading.

"Senate Votes 79-18 To Advance a Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United"

[gtar100]

120. It's the press doing their best to make republicans look good.

It seems to be their purpose in life these days.

[minivan2]

121. Check the post again

I changed it.

[JimDandy]

126. Aww. Good for you!

I now have you on my mental list of good eggs. Will fix some of my posts now too.

[minivan2]

127. Oh stop with the baby talk BS

I changed it before you commented and that's final.

[JimDandy]

128. Was being sincere

and not sarcastic. Truly meant every word. Deleted my posts. Darn the impersonality of the internet.

[minivan2]

129. Well why did you delete it?

Was it because you like to be a jerk?

[JimDandy]

130. No. It's a courtesy thing.

If a poster who was bothered by something in someone elses post and later sees that that poster has edited their post with a correction or clarification, then it is polite for the first poster to delete their original post(s) because the post(s) has then become no longer accurate itself and is therefore not pertinent to the thread.

I don't know of anyone in real life who has considered me a jerk. I am sort of fact driven by profession, though, and am sorry if I came across online as one to you. Sort of nonplussed to hear that an affectionate phrase, 'good egg' that I use offline sounds like baby talk. Shall probably stop using it now.

[minivan2]

131. Apology accepted

To the DUer's who were in the jury I apologize.

[YvonneCa]

19. Was that a cloture vote...

...? http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/217025-senate-advances-constitutional-amendment-on-campaign-spending

[JimDandy]

90. Yes. Thanks for helping to clarify that! n/t

[Archae]

2. Shit, Orange Man won't even allow a vote on it!

The GOP is so corrupt they stink on ice, and this puts a big dent in their corruption.

Who voted against the bill?

I bet our Senator Dumbass (Johnson) voted against it.

[minivan2]

7. Feinstein voted for it.

And she's gotten so corporate that I thought she would have voted no.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. SOP for DiFi

She knows it's going nowhere, so she can look good voting for it in public while working to help scuttle it in private.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. Good ...

Cue up Democratic campaign talking points ... "I don't believe it is in the best interest of this country to have foreign interests and the rich to have undue influence on our elections, do you? And oh yeah, Corporation are not people."

[freshwest]

91. Obama said that, yes. Also that a concerted citizens movement could overturn CU. Let's see if GOP

'populists' still exist in large enough numbers to force the hand of the HoR.

Tea Party darlings like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz pledged their allegiance to the Koch brothers at their meetings, just as have Walker, Christie, Perry and Scott. I'm sure I've forgotten the name of some other scoundrels.

TPers get advantage from Koch Industries; but most do not. Fingers crossed. If they don't rise up against the Koch's, their future is perpetual servitude.

Would love to see which GOP in the Senate grew a backbone and turned on their party's master.

[SunSeeker]

3. Wow. I wouldn't have expected so many GOP votes.

But yeah, the House is a gerrymandering-created monster. We'll see....

[JimDandy]

92. Let's see if those same GOPers

vote to pass it out of the Senate. That's the important vote.

[Elmergantry]

5. So if this ever became law..

Congress could prevent Unions and other Democratic-leaning organizations from funding their causes.


Watch what you ask for.

[arcane1]

18. I ask for public financing and a $100 personal donation cap.

[cstanleytech]

22. This would level the playing field in favor of the unions more than anything imo.

Especially considering that the corporations already wield far more power than the unions do in influencing congress and the senate.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

33. I don't get it.

Your comment I mean. The vote is to repeal a law.........

[marym625]

94. Not really

The Amendment will cause rulings, like Citizens United and McCutcheon to be illegal.

Not actually repealing a law in the strict sense

[Veilex]

35. "Congress could prevent Unions and other Democratic-leaning organizations from funding their causes"

Ummm... and that's supposed to be a bad thing right? Organizations being empowered is what got us into this mess in the first place. Empower people... represent people... not organizations, special interests or corporations. If organizations are to exist, let them serve people... not have people serve them.

[Half-Century Man]

63. Organizations should be able to make political contributions.

By this formula (PA)=C

P=number of persons in organization whom choose to contribute
A=The amount each person personally chooses to contribute (with full documentation, up to but not exceeding the legal limit for personal contribution)
C=combined contribution donated as a block from the people who make up a particular organization.

As one of the reasons corporations exist is to enable legal contracts and obligations to extend beyond the normal life span of humans; any momentary expression of opinion, morals, political leanings, religious affiliation, or personal endorsement is not a statement by the corporation itself, rather those things are expressions of the temporary holders of corporate offices. The legal entity that is a corporation is incapable of having opinions, morals, political leanings, religious affiliation, or endorsing any person in favor of another.

[Veilex]

72. Sorry but...

your comment changes mine, not at all.

[Half-Century Man]

83. I'm not arguing with you.

I'm saying no organization, pro or anti-democratic party, should be able to contribute a single dime. The people who belong to any organization should be able to pool their individual contributions and give as a collective unit (with the proper documentation to prove the combined contribution was comprised of separate individual donations).

[Veilex]

93. A "collective unit" is an organization.

The point here is to place power directly into the hands of the people... rather than relying on a proxy organization of some sort.

[FlaGranny]

134. Might be okay IF

a corporation did not "enforce" the contributions of the people in the "collective unit" which represents the company's interests. How would you stop them from doing that? It's been happening forever.

[Half-Century Man]

140. Legislate that only living things have opinions.

[Psephos]

145. Your belief in the incorruptible power of legislation is quaint. n/t

[eggplant]

61. I would have no issue with that.

Getting our money out of politics is worth the price of getting their money out of politics. The purpose of unionization is to level the playing field. This levels it.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. I'm fine with across the board strict limits.

Get the money out of politics, means get ALL the money out of politics.

[Veilex]

125. +1

[JimDandy]

95. Okay by me.

A recent report says that congress is not voting the way the overwhelming public majority wishes anyway. They are voting almost exclusively in the best interests of corporations.

[Dont call me Shirley]

6. Thank you Senators Udall and Heinrich.

Half of the Repukes couldn't stomach the blame for the monster they have created.

[DocMac]

57. They can stomach anything. I've seen it. nt

[JimDandy]

74. Even under seige

this election period, Udall does the right thing. Hope this bill is approved by the Senate soon.

[Dont call me Shirley]

119. No Weh, No Way!

[randys1]

8. wow,total shock

[Lobo27]

10. So are the GoP doing this because they're...

Terrified of the monster they created? Fucking idiots...

[RKP5637]

16. Probably/possibly the idiot factor that thought this was a grand idea have realized they have

created an alternate government ruled by extreme wealth, and they are not going to be in control of the monster they have created. Extreme wealth rules itself, these idiots are just fodder under their feet. What was bizarre is SCOTUS sided with a move to destroy the democracy.

[cstanleytech]

24. I think they did it more for show than because they had a change of heart. nt

[RKP5637]

26. I hope this really stupid ruling is over turned somehow. n/t

[Liberalynn]

80. This!

They know Boner will kill it but they can look good to constitutes. Pukes are trying to win the Senate so they have to at least look like they care and aren't on the take, even though they don't and they are.

[cstanleytech]

109. Plus even if congress votes yes the states themselves have to ratify amendments

and the republicans control more than enough states that they can drag it out for decades if they want so really there is zero chance that it will pass as right now they can accept all the bribe money they want with zero risk of going to jail.

[hack89]

137. No. It simply means that there are other issues they don't want to talk about

before the election and that they can use this debate to push other issues to the side.

[RKP5637]

11. I'm amazed! I never thought it would gain any traction with republicans. n/t

[JimDandy]

73. The cynic in me

doesn't believe the traction with Republicans goes beyond this vote for Cloture. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it actually passes the Senate.

[YvonneCa]

106. I agree. A lot of members want to cut off debate. Doesn't...

...mean they are for the legislation. Sadly.

[Arkana]

12. 79-18?

That means some of them crossed the aisle. Who?

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Here are the 24 aisle-crossers

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

[Thinkingabout]

27. Thanks for the vote list

[demwing]

30. Roll Call

BTW -This was just a vote to advance..(cloture vote)

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---79
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Walsh (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---18
Barrasso (R-WY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)

Not Voting - 3
Blunt (R-MO)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)

[Burf-_-]

54. figures

why am i not surprised to see Coburn and Inhofe on the Unashamed list.

[Liberalynn]

81. Wonder why Gilibrand didn't vote?

[underpants]

135. Thanks

[rbrnmw]

144. Not surprised about POStman Ohio

I am surprised about the others who voted for it.

[Jackpine Radical]

82. The only one I would have predicted is McCain.

[JimDandy]

108. I think he's

also the likeliest Repub to vote for the bill itself when it actually comes up for a vote.

[ChiciB1]

15. WOW! Is This For Real??

Guess Repukes feel it's served it's purpose for now. Seems they're DROWNING IN MONEY and don't know how to spend it all!

Who knows, just have my fingers crossed that this will really make it through! Lots of people really need lots of help and THAT money could be well spent on too many of us!

[Veilex]

46. I think it is much more likely that they've realized that

this could end up funding Democrats just as much as Republicans... I mean after all, look at what HRC is doing with it, and she hasn't even declared she's running yet!

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Which shows even a majority of Republican senators know people want this

even if they're being cynical and relying on the House blocking it, they want to be able to say to voters "I voted for this".

[JimDandy]

68. I think the Repubs will

still block it from passing the Senate.

[suffragette]

85. Great point.

[hack89]

138. I think it is simply a tactical political move before the election

days spent debating this means that there will be less time to debate other more important issues like equal pay for women, reducing college debt, etc.

They know that they will not be punished by their base for this vote.

[sheshe2]

20. I'm shocked! eom

[JimDandy]

62. Well it has to pass the Senate still

so I'm not shocked yet.

Wish it had more teeth to it, in any case.

[C Moon]

23. Hopefully voters are paying attention to this...if they house shoots it down,

let's send the GOP to the bottom.

[JimDandy]

70. They might pay attention

if it ever passes the Senate.

[karynnj]

25. I'm not sure that it won't be voted on in the House

There are many Republicans who voted not to filibuster - thus insuring it ultimately will pass the Senate.

Here is the roll call:

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---79
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Walsh (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---18
Barrasso (R-WY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)

Not Voting - 3
Blunt (R-MO)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)


The only surprise in the nos - given so many Republicans voted yes - is Portman, who is often called a moderate -- but is rumored to be thinking 2016 (which might explain the vote)

Edited to add that they actually need 67% of the votes - and some sources are saying that the Republicans who let it pass cloture intend to vote against it. If it does pass, I think it seems the same % in the House and then ratification by 75% of the states. Long hard process -- that intentionally will rarely succeed.

[Archae]

34. Our Senator Dumbass voted against it, like I thought.

Wisconsin Senator Johnson.

[Half-Century Man]

76. Another business drone who moved into politics.

Two subjects as closely related as pencils and giraffes.

[littlewolf]

28. this will never come to the floor of the house ..... nt

[951-Riverside]

29. While they're at it, they can get rid of that stupid 2nd amendment too

How many people have to die because of its very existence?

Weapons of war have no business in the public domain.

[Veilex]

47. "they can get rid of that stupid 2nd amendment too"

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't disagree... but it will never happen.
*On edit*
Forgot to add "don't" in there

[leftyohiolib]

31. the republiclowns calld their bluff

[JimDandy]

118. Called whose bluff? What was the bluff? n/t

[C Moon]

32. Regarding Reid's quote...

“You’re either for campaign spending reform or not,” Reid said ahead of the vote. “This constitutional amendment is what we need to bring sanity back to elections and restore Americans’ confidence in our democracy.”

The GOP doesn't want sanity back in the elections or American's confidence in our democracy: the GOP and the 1% are doing just fine the way things are now. It's the rest of us that are getting frocked up.

[Thinkingabout]

36. I think the results did fall exactly as GOP thought at first.

Probably figured the DNC would not able to raise money and the GOP friends would buy whatever the GOP wanted, it backfired. DNC has been raising lots of money. The SC ruling stinks to high heaven, has injured the SC standing. The justices should be able to put their feelings on a back burner and interpret the Constitution nut they missed on this one.

[Nevada Blue]

37. Will it get thru the House? Probably not but

that will not take away the smidgen of hope I feel today.

Especially pleased with Heller's cross-over vote. I had written the obligatory letter on this one and had actually received a thoughtful (if mass-mailed) response that addressed the specific issue.

So - the House may take the wind out of my sails on this one soon - but today? I am hopeful.

[Veilex]

48. "I am hopeful"

Me too!!!

[Fred Sanders]

38. Two faced McConnell voted for it, while publicly smearing any kind of reform that might pass soon.

Can you indeed have your cake and eat it too, if the media is bought off to never mention the hypocrisy?

[JDPriestly]

39. I'm glad it passed, but don't we need an amendment to the Constitution?

Can't the Supreme Court overrule this bill?

The Supreme Court based its decision on an interpretation of the Constitution. Don't we need to amend the Constitution in order to challenge that interpretation?

[Veilex]

52. This is an amendment that is up for consideration...

rather than merely another bill.

[longship]

53. Umm! This is the cloture vote for a Constitutional amendment.

If it passes the Senate on the floor with 75%, it will go to the House. If it passes there, it goes to the state legislatures for adoption.

One can only hope that it quickly gets through all those hoops.

I am afraid that is not likely. Regardless, one can work hard for that, and hope.

[bluestateguy]

40. I don't agree with spending limits on candidates

Spending limits for PAC's, 527s and 501 c groups, OK, but not on an individual candidate.

[drm604]

41. I'm a little concerned about the wording of the amendment.

It gives Congress (and the states) the power to limit donations and to differentiate between natural and artificial persons. It doesn't seem to limit how they can do that. Could we, for example, see a Republican dominated legislature placing limits on unions but not on corporations?
It may need some reworking.

[marym625]

96. It's good!

I posted about this yesterday and I believe WE AT DU MADE A DIFFERENCE!

But I did a great deal of research on it and spoke to many organizations and Elected officials offices today.

Also, Justice John Paul Stevens (retired) testified FOR this Amendment. He's not going to testify for anything that would infringe on civil rights

[drm604]

123. Can you specifically address my objection?

I'm still concerned.

It should explicitly disallow anything other than a natural citizen from funding elections. It can give congress the power to set a per individual limit, but it has to be the same limit for every contributor.

[marym625]

133. I want to understand you correctly

A natural citizen would mean you have to be born here. Is that what you mean? I suspect you're talking about corporations? I just want to be sure I know what you mean.

What is it, in the Amendment, that makes you think one person would have a different limit than another?

I am sorry for the detailed requests. I am planning to post something in a few days that will, hopefully quell all fears with the passage of this Amendment. The better I understand the objections, the better I can respond.

Thank you

[AZ Progressive]

42. House Representatives are even more leashed than Senators

They have to ALWAYS be in election mode since their seat is up every 2 years, and at least from information provided by the DCCC, have to spend 4-5 hours a day fundraising (especially those who don't have safe seats.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html

[amandabeech]

60. I worked in the House briefly.

All my member did was dial for dollars and he didn't like it one bit.

There may be enough pukes who are similarly disgusted.

The trick in the House is getting either a majority of the puke caucus to go along with the vote or convincing Boehner to break the self-imposed Hastert rule. The only possibility after that is the discharge petition and Pelosi hasn't used that last-resort procedure as yet.

[TheProgressive]

43. This amendment is worthless as written...

The amendment needs to absolutely and definitively say 'people are people', that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. The mealy-mouth '...and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law' does not require Congress to do anything and by itself means and does nothing. The operative word 'may' means that even if this amendment is totally enacted, it would still take Congress to put teeth into it because may means 'may or may not'. That also means that Congress could pass a law to overturn legislation that did have teeth in it.

Sorry, this amendment is worthless as written...

[bluestateguy]

58. The same can be said about 13th-15th Amendments

They allow Congress to pass enforcement legislation pursuant to the Amendment. Or the 16th Amendment, which did not by itself create an income tax; it only gave Congress the right to do so. And it did.

[Nye Bevan]

71. Imagine a law passed by Congress that made it illegal to spend any money to criticize a congressman.

So you could say all the mean things you liked about a member of Congress on the street, or to your friends, but you could not spend any money on publishing a book, buying ads, or purchasing bandwidth, to criticize a congressman. Under your suggested amendment ("money is not speech&quot such a law would be constitutional.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. It specifically carves out freedom of the press.

Imagine that.

[Nye Bevan]

99. So Rupert Murdoch could spend unlimited amounts of money getting his message out,

but a union's spending would be severely restricted?

And what's to stop the Koch Brothers starting up a "newspaper", distributed on the internet and cable TV in multimedia format?

This whole concept is remarkably ill-conceived.

[onenote]

124. and who defines what constitutes "the press" and how is it defined?

Remember, CU involved spending money to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise that film. Are movies "the press" or are they fair game for regulation?

[oldandhappy]

44. Thank you for the post.

I am pleased with the vote. Was hoping it would pass but never expected such a good vote. And thank you to those of you who put the voting lists in your responses.

[JimDandy]

64. Cloture is good

but it's still got to pass the Senate.

[AC_Mem]

45. Good News

And while the House won't take the vote seriously, what if the House flips to Democratic Majority?

More reason for every single Democrat to vote in November and in future primaries. GOTV and volunteer! When you vote, take someone with you. Make some calls for the cause, take a moment to speak to someone about the importance of voting. Educate the uneducated.

We can do this - I remember a man named Obama.....



Shine on,
Annette

[JimDandy]

65. GOTV is certainly more important than this cloture vote.

If this ever passes the Senate, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, minivan.

[TrollBuster9090]

50. Five Bucks says Boehner doesn't let it go to the House Floor for a vote.

Which means that EVERY CONGRESSMAN will have to be ASKED IN PERSON about it by either the MSM or by people at Town Hall meetings.


1. Do you support the idea of raising the minimum wage?
2. Do you support the idea of even HAVING a minimum wage?
3. Do you think corporations should have the same Constitutional rights as people?
4. If not, do you support this Amendment?

[JimDandy]

66. What are you betting

that this will even pass the Senate?

[jaysunb]

59. What Senate is this ? Surely not the folks in DC.....n/t

[JimDandy]

104. Now the repubs

can campaign that they voted to at least get it heard. Doubtful that enough if them will vote for it to pass out of the Senate with the 2/3rds majority vote it needs, though.

[Nye Bevan]

67. Like the ACLU, I oppose this effort to partially repeal the First Amendment. (nt)

[marym625]

100. SOME of the ACLU

Not all. There is a huge in house disagreement

[LiberalArkie]

69. I think the incumbent R's are scared of what people like the Koch's might fund if

they did the wrong thing.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

75. Eh, don't get too excited

This was a safe vote for the Republicans in the senate. They know full well this will never get through the house.

[tavernier]

79. True.

The house is lately built on straws and sticks.

No stones.

[JimDandy]

97. It's a tough call

whether it even will pass out of the Senate with the necessary 2/3 vote.

[Scuba]

77. Even if this passed in the House and the President signed it ....

... you think Congress is going to pass any laws that would fix things?

A Constitutional Amendment is not the time for baby steps. Trusting Congress to pass effective campaign finance laws is a joke.

[WillyT]

78. K & R !!!

[napi21]

88. I'm glad the Senate seems to be listening to their constituents, BUT there's something missing!

I thought they were going to include the phrase "Corporations are NOT people!" I'm sure I heard at least one Senator (I think it was Bernie Sanders) say that it was very important that that be included.


I'm also hoping that Boehner and company recognize that this is a very important vote and if they don't hold a vote OR those who vote against it, stand a chance that this vote could cost them their seat.

[JimDandy]

101. At least the Senate

now gets to vote on it. Whether it gets the 2/3rds majority or not to pass the Senate is another thing.

There have been several amendments floated around with various wording. This is one of the weaker ones, which may be why it got this far.

[ReRe]

98. Won't fly unless it gets to...

... the President's desk AND he signs it. But hey, it's movement, even though we know it will hit a brick wall in the House. Now, if the electorate will register and get out to the polls on election day and vote in Democratic majorities in the HOUSE and the SENATE, then perhaps we'll see how a government is supposed to work. We also need to replace the DINOs this Nov.

[JimDandy]

105. I think the President

would sign it. Hopefully the Senate can get the 2/3 majority vote needed to pass it out... Leery about it passing the House.

This issue won't go away, though, so GOTV is important if it is ever to get to a dem President's desk.

[ieoeja]

139. Presidents are not involved in the Constitutional Amendment process.

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.

[ReRe]

147. OK!

I was a little confused about this. I was thinking that there had to be a "Constitutional Congress" or a special committee to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Thanks for setting me and others straight on this. Lawrence O'Donnell had Al Franken on last night discussing the process. Does DU have a group or forum that studies/discusses the Constitution? If not, I think there should be. Again, thanks!

[DavidDvorkin]

148. Damn, they don't write sentences like that any more.

[grahamhgreen]

102. Very good news. Keep calling!

[marym625]

103. Just sad you beat me to the post

I was waiting to get off work. Wanted to follow up from my post yesterday.

But, you beat me and put up a beautiful post that was very clear!

Seriously believe that with all the responses yesterday that DU helped make this happen! That's so damn cool!

[minivan2]

111. Aww I'm sorry marym!

If it makes you feel any better I can credit you as well.

[marym625]

117. I'm teasing

But thank you. Just was so excited about the vote! And I am not kidding that I believe we helped.

Nice post minivan2!

[dotymed]

107. Please do not put party first.

Lets elect Bernie as President.

[locks]

110. Wow

temporary probably but Great anyway. Sent a lot of notes to my Colorado Senators and they both sponsored it.

[TheVisitor]

113. I sent...

some e-mails to Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and I remember reading not too long ago that she didn't openly support this type of reform... but I am really hoping she does now and these votes actually represent some kind of humanity in these people...

I wonder if this has to do with the MaydayPAC... it seems like it does

[TheVisitor]

115. check it out...

visit https://mayday.us/ to see some more financial reform backers... bipartisan backing on this, looks legit

[djnicadress]

112. good first step

I didn't see a time limit for passage in the text of the amendment usually it's seven years.

I do think that section 3. should be clarified to apply to all other fist amendment protections not just the press

[DallasNE]

114. This Was Just The Vote To End A Filibuster

The Senate will now spend 30 hours debating the bill on the floor. That is 30 hours not spent debating things like minimum wage, etc. This vote was tactical to slow the Senate down on other business. At the end of the 30 hours will be another vote and there is no chance the measure will get the necessary 67 votes for passage, even though there were 79 votes for ending the filibuster.

[JimDandy]

116. All likely true, unfortunately. n/t

[madville]

132. Wouldn't the state legislatures have to approve the amendment as well?

Wouldn't like 3/4 of the state legislatures have to approve the change also? That's a pretty high hurdle, we will see if it actually gets through the Senate first though, nice gesture regardless.

[demwing]

142. Oops!

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 08:25 PM - Edit history (2)

My bad, sorry...

[24601]

149. It's not "either/or" but "and". After a proposed amendment is passed by 2/3 of both the Hose and

Senate, it must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

The other route is for 2/3 of the states to all for a Constitutional Convention. This process bypasses Congress completely. Each proposed amendment that gets 2/3 vote in the convention goes to the states where 3/4 of the states must ratify in order to amend the Constitution. It's the threat of such a convention that sometimes motivates Congress to advance an amendment most members oppose - because once in session, a Constitutional Convention is essentially unlimited. Congress fears what could come out of such a forum, like term limits, a balanced budget or constitutional limits on unfunded mandates.

[demwing]

150. You're right, I'm confusing two separate steps in a constitutional amendment

The either/or came from how an amendment can be proposed, the 3/4 figure came from the ratification, and I combined both in my addled mind. Correcting my previous post.

My bad, glad the mic wasn't on

[hack89]

136. The fact that the repukes want to talk about this before an election

simply means that there are other things they do not want to talk about before an election.

[valerief]

141. Maybe the Senate will vote for this 50 times like the House does

for repealing the ACA.

[yurbud]

143. Even if it doesn't make it through this time, voters can see which

Pols are so corrupt they voted against it

[yurbud]

146. try this: find some headlines on this on MSM. I've searched NYT, WaPo, CNN, BBC...

haven't found it on any of them yet.

If somebody finds a banner headline of it other than on a lefty site, take a screenshot and post it.