Senate Democrats Plot Vote To Overturn Citizens United In 2014

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the Democratic Policy Committee chairman, leaves a news conference after he and other leaders spoke to reporters after the Democratic-led Senate rejected conditions that House Republicans ... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the Democratic Policy Committee chairman, leaves a news conference after he and other leaders spoke to reporters after the Democratic-led Senate rejected conditions that House Republicans attached to a temporary spending bill, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Sept. 30, 2013. On the brink of a government shutdown, the Senate voted 54-46 on Monday to strip a one-year delay in President Barack Obama's health care law from the bill that would keep the government operating. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The Senate will vote in 2014 on a constitutional amendment to undo Supreme Court rulings in recent years which invalidated campaign finance limits, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday.

The No. 3 Democratic senator made the announcement during a Senate Rules Committee hearing, saying his majority would hold a vote on Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-NM) proposal, which would reverse decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon and restore Congress’s authority to set campaign finance limits.

“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections,” Schumer said. “That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. The only way to undo the damage the court has done is to pass Senator Udall’s amendment to the Constitution, and Senate Democrats are going to try to do that. Before the year is out, we’re going to bring it up on the Senate floor for a vote, where we hope Republicans will join us in ensuring the wealthy can’t drown out middle-class voices in our democracy.”

The proposal stands virtually no chance of gaining the two-thirds majority required in the House and Senate to amend the Constitution, much less being ratified by three-fourths of states. It is part of Democrats’ election-year strategy in 2014, given the unpopularity of the Citizens United ruling. Republicans are largely supportive of the Supreme Court’s decisions.

Former Justice John Paul Stevens, an outspoken critic of the Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings, testified at the hearing Wednesday. He retired from the Supreme Court in 2010.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. This is something that needs to be done, futile though it may be. It will show all those Tea Partiers what kind of Senate representation they get and who their Senators REALLY work for!

  2. I get the point he’s trying to make. But I’ll be honest…I’m not in favor of empty Constitutional Amendment legislation that just waste people’s time…that’s a space the RWNJs have carved out for themselves…no need for the D’s to join them. There is zero chance at this time of the country coming together enough to pass any amendment, let alone one as complex as this will likely end up being. I’d say save this for when/if the lunacy ever starts to die down.

  3. That’s a fair point, but this is a conversation that needs to be had, and there’s only one way to start it.

  4. It really doesn’t matter if such an amendment passes. It doesn’t matter if it DOESN’T pass. What MATTERS is that we get to beat the Republicans over the head with it again and again.

  5. No less futile than voting down ACA 50 times.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

17 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for druid800 Avatar for swirlystar Avatar for brooklyndweller Avatar for jonathang Avatar for agio Avatar for deckbose Avatar for fargo116 Avatar for downriverdem Avatar for glblank Avatar for rudesan Avatar for thedebunkifier Avatar for watergate_mike1 Avatar for uggswell_p_gravel Avatar for sarenarterius Avatar for jeloso Avatar for ABDUR Avatar for Loup_Bouc Avatar for normmacdonald

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: