Press Release: Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections

Washington, Jan 19 –

On the eve of the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgate of unlimited, shadowy corporate spending in public elections, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced H. J. Res. 100, a constitutional amendment to rescue American democracy from corporate money’s corrupting influence.

“Because of the decision by the Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case, more money was spent on campaigns in the 2010 election than has ever been spent in a mid-term election.

“Because of the Citizens United case, more money will be spent in the 2012 elections than has ever been spent in an election in the history of our country.

“Because of the Citizens United case, American democracy has been put up on the auction block,” said Kucinich.

Read More

Huffington Post: Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

-By Dan Froomkin

January 17, 2012- WASHINGTON — What do you do when people are growing increasingly angry about the influence of money on the political system — but that very same political system is too co-opted to care?

Common Cause on Tuesday announced an attempt to put a measure on the ballot in all 50 states that would allow voters to constructively express that anger — and forcefully express their view that unlimited spending is hijacking our democracy.

"In the spirit of Occupy, we are creating the tools for as close to a national referendum as we can," said Bob Edgar, president of the nonpartisan government watchdog group.

"The potential for corruption and scandal is now the worst it's been since Watergate and Nixon's bag men," said Robert Reich, who chairs Common Cause's board. "All this is just going to get worse unless people do something dramatically to stop it."

Read More

RAW Story: Dan Rather: Republicans turning against Citizens United ruling

-By Eric W. Dolan

January 16, 2012- Dan Rather, host of Dan Rather Reports on HDNet, said Monday that Republicans and conservatives were beginning to re-think their support for the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

“When the decision first came through, I think it was practically unanimous thinking among Republicans and self-described conservatives, ‘This is a dream come true,’” he said on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show.

“But it turns out the dream has some nightmarish hues and here’s why: the candidates don’t necessarily control their own campaign any more nor does the state Republican Party nor does the national Republican Party. Any big money super millionaire who chooses to do so can pour money in any statewide or national campaign.”


Read More

Huffington Post: Rick Perry: South Carolina Is At War With The Government On Voter ID

-By Elise Foley

January 16, 2012– Texas Gov. Rick Perry said on Monday that he would continue to fight for voter identification laws in Texas, responding to a somewhat leading question tied to Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

The South Carolina and Texas laws would require voters to provide a photo I.D. at the polls, which could keep some low-income, young or minority residents from voting. The Justice Department is attempting to block these laws.

Read More

LA Times: Hunted by the ‘super PACs’

Conservatives applauded the Citizens United ruling. But now GOP candidates are feeling the heat.


January 14, 2012- When the Supreme Court handed down its 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, reaction tended to break along familiar lines: Conservatives saw it as an affirmation of free speech, while liberals warned of the effects of lifting restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns. (The political reaction mirrored the court's own split, which was 5 to 4, with the more liberal justices dissenting.)

If contributions are a form of speech, conservatives reasoned, then the Constitution can't permit restrictions on speech by corporations — or unions, for that matter — any more than it can on individuals. Liberal critics, meanwhile, rejected the idea that corporations had the same free-speech rights as individuals and bewailed the rush of spending that the ruling would permit.

Read More

1 2 3 4 5 6