A constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United?

by Gloria Feldt on June 19th, 2012
in Political Strategy, Politico Arena, Politics and tagged , ,

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?

Politico Arena asks:

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?

My Response:

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.

Gloria Feldt is the author of No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power. Buy the book here. Engage Gloria for a Speech or Workshop. Tweet @GloriaFeldt and connect on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+ Gloria is the co-founder (with Amy Litzenberger) of Take the Lead, a new initiative to prepare and propel women to leadership parity by 2025. Find them @takeleadwomen and on Facebook.

Latest posts by Gloria Feldt (Posts)

One Response to A constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United?

  1. Aletha says:

    Even the founding fathers, who created a republic where only men of means could vote, would recoil in horror at what has happened to their grand experiment. There used to be strict limits on corporations, for very good reasons. All that has gone out the window, and now this is a government by, for, and of corporate power. Why corporations are allowed to have any influence over politics whatsoever is beyond me. That used to be considered corruption, by definition, and it has perverted both democracy and free enterprise to the point neither deserves the name.

Leave a Reply to this Post

Speak up early and often here at Heartfeldt. Post your comments freely. I already know what I think--it's your opinions that interest me. It goes without saying that obscene or threatening comments and comments that are not germane to the topic will be removed. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Thank you for your cooperation!