Wish I’d had more time to write about all the ways Citizens United is not about free speech. Maybe you can help me out here with your comments?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced a constitutional amendment aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision on campaign finance. The amendment would also overturn a Supreme Court decision that struck down an Arizona law that allowed public financing of a candidate if their opponent exceeded certain spending limits.
Is this a good idea? Or would it be the first constitutional amendment since the 18th, allowing for prohibition of alcohol, which would restrict freedoms and liberties rather than enhance them – in this case free speech?
Money certainly does talk. Citizens United may be promoted as free speech by folks like the Koch brothers and corporations masquerading as people, but in truth the decision silences most Americans. It should be overturned. That can only happen through federal legislation or a Constitutional amendment.
Schiff’s proposed amendment gets the public debate started at the highest level of democratic discourse, and that’s where it should be.
Latest posts by Gloria Feldt (Posts)
- The Young Politica: Guns on Campus - April 26, 2013
- Women’s Campaign Fund Won’t Settle for Less Than Half - April 24, 2013
- Women’s History Month: Why Sally Jewell as Secretary of the Interior Could be a Historic Win - March 29, 2013