OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

House Dems Propose A Constitutional Amendment For Citizens United

February 3, 2010 - by Eric Naing

Two liberal House members yesterday triggered what could be a “nuclear option” in dealing with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision: a constitutional amendment.

If you recall, the Supreme Court recently lifted a ban on unlimited corporate spending in federal elections. In general, Republicans support the decision while Democrats are outraged. In response, a few Congressional Democrats have been pursuing legislative methods to limit the decision’s impact.

Yesterday, Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4] and Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] introduced a constitutional amendment (H.J.Res.74), by far the most drastic legislative action available, allowing Congress to “regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.”

The amendment, which is only sponsored by Edwards and Conyers as of today, is pretty straightforward:

SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Both Sen. Arlen Specter [D, PA] and Sen. John Kerry [D, MA] have brought up the idea of amending the Constitution in response to the Citizen’s United decision, though neither has actually introduced an actual amendment yet.

Considering the difficulty Democrats have had in passing, say, a health care bill, it’s highly unlikely they’ll manage to pass a constitutional amendment which needs the support of two-thirds of both chambers and would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.


LetsDrinkCoke 02/12/2010 7:07am

What is so wrong with this idea? I understand the writer saying this is a “nuclear option”, proposing an amendment but in all honesty that’s what the Constitution is about. We should use this option more often then we do, and in cases like this I can see it as just. When the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, which it is doing more and more often, the way to counteract that, and to keep the balance of the powers in line is to put it in the Constitution so that the Court can’t say its un-constitutional. I’d like to read more debate on this and hear the opposing view, but for me personally, I like this idea a lot.

itiswhatitisnt 02/12/2012 8:14pm

Thank you for the website. I enjoyed the information and the comments of your visitors.
roofing contractor rocklin

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.