Google Ads


Site Stats

IA-03: Boswell introduces constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS ruling

by: desmoinesdem

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM EST


Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) has introduced a constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case. (Read the ruling and many reactions and commentaries at the SCOTUS blog.)
desmoinesdem :: IA-03: Boswell introduces constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS ruling
Boswell is looking for co-sponsors and explained the case for amending the constitution:

"I have introduced this important legislation because the Supreme Court's ruling strikes at the very core of democracy in the United States by inflating the speech rights of large, faceless corporations to the same level of hard-working, every day Americans," Boswell said in a statement. "The court's elevation of corporate speech inevitably overpowers the speech and interests of human citizens who do not have the coffers to speak as loudly."

Boswell said House Joint Resolution 68 would disallow a corporation or labor organization from using any operating funds or any other funds from its general treasury to pay for an advertisement in connection with a federal election campaign, regardless of whether or not the advertisement expressly advocates the election or defeat of a specified candidate.

"Corporations already have an active role in American political discourse through million-dollar political action committees and personal donations to campaigns," Boswell said. "The legislation I introduced will prevent the Wall Street corporations that received billions in taxpayer bailout dollars from turning around and pouring that same money into candidates that will prevent financial regulation on their industry. No American should have to turn on the TV and see AIG telling them how to vote."

Five Republicans are running against seven-term incumbent Boswell in this D+1 district. Most Iowa observers consider Brad Zaun and Jim Gibbons the front-runners. Dave Funk has the backing of the Tea Party crowd, and I love his tweets that begin, "Congress needs Funk." Mark Rees is staking out a moderate position, and I have no idea what Pat Bertroche is doing in this race.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Let's broaden this
and state simply that corporations are not "persons" under the 14th Amendment of the Constitutions.

I would also like a call for impeachment of some of the justices who were involved in this decision.  Specifically Clarence Thomas.


My idea for broadening.
Is to make public financing the SOLE source of campaign funds.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
This Supreme Court would strike that down
You still need to impeach Uncle Clarence (or put enough stress on his tiny heart for him to die).  

But look, Obama and the Democrats have a major opportunity here, to position themselves as the populist party from now on.  It can't just be in words, but in deeds.  If they are able to, November might be a pleasant surprise, and we may shock the world with how well we do.  If they don't the House is gone, and the Senate will be Democratic in name only.

People are pissed on the economic issues.  And everyone, both right and left I talk to think that Congress is in the back pockets of Wall Street and the big banks.  

The Dems already screwed the pooch after Brown's victory.  If the Dem messaging was smart like the GOP, they would have hijacked the media attention and pushed the message that Brown's victory was a rejection of the support of establishment-backed Wall Street.

I'm moving Alan Grayson's seat to Lean Dem today.  He's the only Democrat in Congress who seems to get it.


[ Parent ]
I meant as a Constitutional amendment


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
We can try
but the GOP would have a real attack avenue saying that public financing is "big government".  And there are enough people out there who would fall for this that such an amendment wouldn't pass (given that it needs 2/3).


[ Parent ]
That would be difficult to pass
the sheer cost of a publicly funded campaign alone will scare people off.

This is a fairly easy first step, assuming Olympia Snowe isn't fucking with us again.  


[ Parent ]
A few
calls from Mitch McConnell and Olympia Snowe will change her tune. Especially after the 2008 presidential election where Obama vastly outraised and outspent McCain, the GOP will need all the corporate money they can get to play ball with Obama in 2012.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Any amendment would be difficult to pass
A concerted effort to get okay from 2/3s of both houses plus both houses of at least 38 state legislatures will be difficult to matter what.

But regardless, I think we should make that a clear goal and use it as a wedge issue.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


[ Parent ]
Cost
The "sheer cost" of letting corporate pirates buy their way is at least 100 times what publicly financed campaigns would cost.  We see this with regulation attempts on the banks, Wall Street, Pentagon spending, taxation, climate control, automobile pollution  and mileage and many other items.  Penny wise and pound foolish.

[ Parent ]
Focusing on the electoral aspect...
I think this bodes very well for Boswell. This election will be all about populist anger, and nothing says populism like taking on corruption and corporations.

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan

Every Democrat should be cosponsoring this amendment
This should basically be a litmus test.

[ Parent ]
AGREED!
My immediate reaction this morning was, for fuck sake, lets just give Congress to Wal-Mart now then.  But then I thought, this gives Democrats a lot of opportunities to brandish some populist chops.

We should get an amendment introduced in the Senate and get the ball rolling.  Even if we know we'll never get it to pass, its something both worth working towards and helps our populist rhetoric.


[ Parent ]
My immediate reaction
As long as Exxon makes $45 billion a year in profits the world could die twenty times over before any meaningful action is taken on climate control.

Second reaction is that Roberts was a high priced corporate lawyer and he still is a high priced corporate lawyer.  The attempts by Roberts, et. al. to look "innocent" were pathetic except the M$M was buying it. These are shrewd, hard manipulative "lawyers" in every negative sense of the term.  They may belong in the Supreme Court as litigators but the evil 5 have no business sitting as "injustices."


[ Parent ]
on second thought
This amendment seems too specific. For all we know future courts will try to strike down all contribution limits. Jonathan Singer suggested something much simpler, like an amendment saying, "Congress is empowered to regulate money in elections."

I think that's a bad way to word it and such
the American electorate already has a bad perception of Congress and saying they get to be in charge of how they will raise money, to many Amrericans, will reek of self-preservation.  It isnt meant to and wont result in that (necessarily) but it'll appear that way.

[ Parent ]
Nice publicity stunt...
... but nothing more. No chance it hell it ever happens.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

Publicity Has Value
If it were the case that nearly every Democrat was for this while nearly every Republican opposed...that'd punch a big hole in the whole idea of the Republicans running on a "populist" plaform.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
I'd be surprised if Dems signed on en masse to this
Namely, the problem is that the media has for months been painting this decision as a boon to Republicans and a blow to Democrats.  As such, attempts to appear populist may only come off as a cheap attempt to save themselves.  One could argue that we'd take the populist stance, but given how badly we've done on messaging I'd assume Republicans would win the framing war on this one.

Second, the truth is that Democrats aren't totally effed by this decision.  I work at a law firm specializing in campaign finance (which is why I've been laying low recently and am likely to totally duck out of SSP in a couple of weeks - my work is getting too involved in the discussions here and I can't compromise my clients or be an unbiased commenter in a lot of these races).  All I'll say is this - there's a lot of Democratic campaign finance lawyers that think we'll be just fine in the long run, as a the McCain-Feingold disclosure laws still apply to corporations.  They are for-profit enterprises, and many of them would risk alienating their consumers by plastering their name all over a Sarah Palin 2012 ad for example.  Moreover, if the corporation is a partnership, the FEC rules would likely dictate that each individual partner's name would have to be listed in the ad.  That may make some Wall Street and investment banking firms back off.  Finally, unions will be able to spend freely as well, giving the Democrats a nice weapon of their own.  I'd also like to point out that this new federal ruling has been existent in California for some time (in fact, it extends to ballot measures as well, and corporations can give directly to campaigns).  It certainly hasn't hurt Democrats out here, nor has it hindered progressives.

Just my two cents.


Well, are Californian corporations and other groups that can take advantage of this
disproportionately more liberal or progressive than the rest of the country?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
To answer
your question, find out who donated to Prop 8.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
There really isn't a breakdown either way
is all I'm saying.  I've been on the ground for a number of California Democrats and while some do take money from Big Pharma and Energy (and the others that make Democrats cringe), many more simply elect to take from unions and progressive nonprofits directly.  On the flipside, corporations don't have to be based in California to take advantage of this - they just have to be based in the United States.  So, there's plenty of national conglomerates that try to pour money in our state to influence policy (wisely knowing that California has a direct impact on national regulation) but it hasn't really hurt Democrats at all.

My main point is that out here, many corporations choose not to air commercials out of their own pocket.  It's expensive, it's time consuming, and it risks pissing off consumers and their employees.  Most simply elect to continue financially influencing the political process through PACs, individual contributions and 501(c)(4)'s - in other words, the same old methods.  If we're really concerned about undue corporate influence in elections, those are the areas that need to be addressed first


[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox