Latest on Citizens United vote to overturn

[teko]

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

[R Glass]

“Unlike with other bills that have majority support, a filibuster wasn't the primary obstacle here. A proposed constitutional amendment has to win 67 votes to be passed by the Senate — so, assuming all Democrats were present, the amendment would still have been 12 votes short overall.”


I’ve been trying to understand this, but to be honest my mind has been kind of “Foggy” lately and I haven’t been able to grasp a hold of this.
So, please bare with me. What was the purpose of the filibuster when there were not enough votes to pass it anyway? Also, if by some miracle it would have passed, does a proposed constitutional amendment, have to pass Congress, where it would have eventually died?

I don’t think either party really wants to see this thing passed.

[brice1967]

Really looks like you asked the question, but whatever.  Everyone here knows democrats aren't capable of any wrong doing or questionable acts.  Thank goodness for them.

[Barb135]

You can read Vox's full explainer on what the amendment would do here. Did you intend to post a link?

[teko]

On Thursday afternoon, a proposal to amend the US Constitution to allow tougher campaign finance and election spending restrictions was blocked in the Senate, in a party-line vote. 54 Democrats voted to advance the measure — another, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), would have done so but wasn't present. However, every single Republican voted against it, and it fell to a filibuster.

Unlike with other bills that have majority support, a filibuster wasn't the primary obstacle here. A proposed constitutional amendment has to win 67 votes to be passed by the Senate — so, assuming all Democrats were present, the amendment would still have been 12 votes short overall.

The amendment would have reversed not just Citizens United, but decades of Supreme Court holdings on political spending, going back to the 1970s. Supporters argued that such a measure is necessary to help reduce the unprecedented amounts of money being spent on elections, but opponents maintained it would hurt free speech and political participation. You can read Vox's full explainer on what the amendment would do here.

[desrt]

Actually, it was teko's question. But unless someone can come up with a better idea, we'll just have to accept that Republicans wish to "empower corporations and deprive individual citizens of their rights" as the truth.

[Barb135]

"Also, remember this: They can try and buy influence over your vote, but they can't buy your vote outright. If you want this amendment, vote on November 4th to boot their bootlicking ***** out of office."

You bet - every last one of them... including the dems who enjoy the benefits as much as anyone else.

Seems to me the biggest thing we've heard about President Obama over the summer is his vacationing and fund raising.  Oh, sorry, he's not a corporation; just the President of the United States, so his fund raising probably doesn't count - I doubt any Republicans will be recipients of any of that money even though it was raised on taxpayer time.

[brice1967]

"......and once again, the question is 'Why did the *Republicans* filibuster this amendment? "  Well, that's your question anyhow.  You'd have to ask them.  Make no mistake, there are plenty of democrats that reap the rewards of big money donors....

[desrt]

......and once again, the question is 'Why did the *Republicans* filibuster this amendment?

[brice1967]

"It's a Republican thing. "   So the giant corporate donors to the democrats aren't in it for the same thing as their republican friends?  Poppycock....

[Vance2335]

Oh so even though Dems get more $ they are not doing the same thing?

[desrt]

" But I find it interesting that the republicans filibustered it? Why would that be?"


Because CU has very little to do with $$$ perse. It's ultimate goal is to  empower corporations and deprive individual citizens of their rights.

It's a Republican thing.

[teko]

No I didnt, why? Because I never did say the dems didnt benefit. So why should I try to defend it? But I find it interesting that the republicans filabustered it? Why would that be?

[Vance2335]

No I didn't but I guess you did not even take a look at the BIG Dem donors?

[teko]

so, you glossed over the part where it was the rpublicans who filabustered it? Obviously you did.

[Vance2335]

Do you really think that the Dems would actually pass this? Do you realize how many big donors they have? As I have said over and over Obama had more large corporate donors then Romney. Harry Reid is in bed with some large donors. It's a nice dog and pony show but it would really go no where no matter who was in office. Both sides feed off the millions they not from large donors not the $20 we donate.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/the-real-party-of-the-rich-guys-top-dem-donors-have-outspent-top-gop-donors-by-486-million-in-last-25-years/

[teko]

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/republican-senators-filibuster-citizens


Are we surprised yet?

[orphanedhawk]

"Regardless of who has profited from it, it needs ( to be) stopped."

Divided we fall, united we stand.
The Orwellian titled Citizens United should unites everyone, ( except for corporations of course) regardless of political affiliation. against this horrible decision.

[brice1967]

The additional commentary was directed at the republicans.  That's why I commented.

[teko]

I copied the ammendment for that reason. This of course is across the board. Republicans and Democrats and Independents across the nation agree this should have never happened to begin with....Regardless of who has profited from it, it needs stopped.

[brice1967]

The thought that Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought this up doesn't really give me the warm fuzzies.  If he really meant cleaning up all of politics of this money, I would agree.  The author made it a republican thing.... democrats not being mentioned either leaves them exempt from wrong doing or not included in the same BS as the Koch brothers....  dems are getting that dirty money too.

[teko]

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.”

[Vance2335]

Funny how they do not talk about the millions that come into the Dems. Obama had a lot more larger donors then Romney, but you would not know that from the media.