Senate Advances Constitutional Fix To Overturn Citizens United

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. talks about unemployment benefits during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014. The number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits fell ... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. talks about unemployment benefits during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014. The number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits fell 2,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 326,000, a sign that layoffs are weighing less on the job market and economic growth. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

A Democratic-led constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and subsequent rulings loosening restrictions on money in politics moved forward in the Senate on Monday evening.

The procedural vote was 79 in favor, 18 against.

The vote means the Senate can begin debate on the measure. But it is highly unlikely to ultimately pass the chamber as it faces fierce Republican opposition. It would need to clear another 60-vote threshold in order to end debate and come to a final vote. And that final vote would require the support of two-thirds of senators to succeed.

The measure, proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), would restore the legal right of Congress to establish campaign spending limits. Approved by committee on a party line basis in July, it is one of several pre-election votes Senate Democrats are planning in an attempt to highlight the contrast between the two parties before Americans head to the polls.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said Republicans are happy to debate the measure, but “to be clear, there is zero support on our side for rewriting the First Amendment to restrict free speech.”

Democrats chose to spotlight the issue because the public is on their side. Most Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in 2010, which wiped out limits on independent expenditures aimed at influencing elections, thereby giving rise to super PACs. Earlier this year, the same five justices ruled to further loosen campaign finance restrictions on aggregate spending by an individual to political candidates and committees in a given cycle.

In both cases, all five Republican-appointed justices voted to remove restrictions, while all four Democratic-appointed justices voted to uphold them.

McConnell, an ardent opponent of campaign finance restrictions, wrote an opinion piece for Politico magazine ahead of the vote bashing “the Democrats’ assault on free speech,” a line of attack also used by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Progressive activists have been aggressively campaigning for the measure, viewing it as a long-term project. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, argued that the issue would help Democrats “excite voters this November.”

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for marby marby says:

    I hope the Democrats publicize this appropriately - a significant number of voters are seriously bothered by the influence of money on campaigns and elections.

  2. The proposed Constitutional amendment would benefit all but a handful of Americans; literally, several hundred million people would benefit from this.

    Naturally, the Republicans oppose this, as they would naturally oppose anything that’s good for nearly all of us. It’s what they do.

  3. “…restore the legal right of Congress to establish campaign spending limits…”

    The single greatest reason to elect Democrats to Congress.

  4. This is about changing the quorum of the Supreme Court. When we elect the next Democratic President, we must also give that President a House to work with.

    With that President and that House we can end the era of neocon/teabagger politics and put America back on the people’s track and off of the corporation’s free ride.

  5. Avatar for jsfox jsfox says:

    Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said Republicans are happy to debate the measure, but “to be clear, there is zero support on our side for rewriting the First Amendment to restrict free speech.”

    Once again confusing money with free speech.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

50 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for slbinva Avatar for jsfox Avatar for marby Avatar for nickdanger Avatar for jonathang Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for mattinpa Avatar for Patriott Avatar for leftflank Avatar for wiscojoe Avatar for byteme Avatar for sywht Avatar for crackerjack Avatar for chuck_voellinger Avatar for grandpoobah Avatar for SpacelySpaceSprockets Avatar for snarkus_aurelius Avatar for tao Avatar for boraxo Avatar for bigdaddydrj Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for meta Avatar for craigfuller

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: