Over 45 thousand Americans sign on to Merkley's constitutional amendment drive

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

On Monday, at U of O, former Senator Russ Feingold made a strident speech in favor of reforming our political system. From the Register-Guard:

“We are at a fork in the road,” Feingold told his audience. “We are going to have total corporate dominance of our political system, or we’re going to have a wake-up call where the public finally says, ‘Enough! We’re going to figure out a way to turn this around.’ That’s what the Occupy Wall Street and the wider Occupy movement is all about.”

His comments on the heels of news that Senator Jeff Merkley has joined with six others - Durbin, Whitehouse, Schumer, Harkin, Udall (NM), and Bennet - to propose a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and the states to regulate campaign contributions and spending.

At the announcement, Merkley noted the huge imbalance in funding available. From the O's Charlie Pope:

"ExxonMobil announced last week that in the third quarter they made over $10 billion in profit. If it allocated just four hours of that profit to political advertising it would have spent more money than both candidates spent in my 2008 Senate campaign; the most expensive Senate campaign in Oregon history," he said.

"If we turn the clock back to 2008 and take ExxonMobil's profits from 2008, 3 percent of that profit would have exceed all the money spent in the presidential campaign by every party. This is indeed a stadium sound system drowning out the voice the people. We cannot let that stand," Merkley said.

And here's the latest news: Yesterday, Senator Merkley and several of the other Senators, called on their supporters to sign a petition to mount a grassroots campaign to reverse Citizens United through this amendment.

In just one day, the Senators have sparked a grassroots wildfire - with over 45,000 Americans signing on in support. If you haven't signed on yet, dive in and be part of the effort.

No doubt, amending the Constitution is a tall order. But the only way it will happen is to build public support now - when the fight is just getting underway.

Here's the full text of the proposed amendment, introduced as S.J. Res. 29:

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through set- ting limits on-- (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and (2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on-- (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and (2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Earlier this year, and last year as well, Congressman Kurt Schrader proposed a similar - but not identical - constitutional amendment of his own, also intended to address Citizens United.

  • (Show?)

    Finally! Thank you Merkles.

  • (Show?)

    Signing petitions is great, but this has to be front and center as an election issue. Without a Congress to pass this amendment and legislatures to pass it, it goes nowhere. Impeachment of the Supreme Court Justices who think that money is speech and corporations are persons with constitutional rights has to also be front and center as an election issue. I would like to see Occupy Wall Street put this at the top of their goals. Without removing money from politics the corporate domination of our government and laws will continue and worsen. If Merkley had some courage, he would begin talking about immediate impeachment of the five judges who have give corporations more rights and power than persons.

    • (Show?)

      I'm right with you. But give Merkley credit for going this far.
      Also, this plan still has the weakness of depending on those congress being willing to reform themselves.

    • (Show?)

      "If Merkley had some courage, he would begin talking about immediate impeachment of the five judges..."

      ...and back here on planet reality, this is exactly why most Democratic elected officials justifiably don't take many on the left seriously.

      • (Show?)

        If Merkeley had any political courage he qwouldn't have taken all of the money he has from organized labor which as far as I am concerned has been far more corrupting than anything else. Now that the unions aren't able to buy elections anymore without some blowback from the corporations they were running the tables on when they had no voice, Merkely decides all of a sudden that the government needs to control things now ...I think something needs to be done to stop the corrupting influence of money in our political system but I don't want the government to be the ones to be the responsible for it.

        When George Soros is able to donate enough money to get Obama to sign an executive order obligating the US taxpayers to guarantee a loan to a brazilian oil company so they can drill for oil where Obama has forbidden us to drill (costing the US 160,000 jobs) as payback to soros so he can get wealthier and do nothing for us ...then we need to find a way to get the money out of politics. I just find it more than hypocritical to hear that Merkeley is the new champion of finance reform lol

  • (Show?)

    Well, come on folks. Advertise it. Get you associates to sign. Explain the importance of the effort.

    Make it a campaign issue.

  • (Show?)

    If Romney is the candidate, it will be a campaign issue because of his "corporations are people, my friend" comment in Iowa.

  • (Show?)

    Completely spaced this.... Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website. I speak only for myself.

  • (Show?)

    "to reverse Citizens United through this amendment"

    Do you believe this goes after Citzens United or Buckley? Reading the proposed amendment I would think that it's Buckley.

    • (Show?)

      Aren't both decisions based on the premise that money-speech. Citizen's United goes further by specifying that corporations are persons under the constitution.

      • (Show?)

        Clarification, that should read " "Money=equals Speech."

        • (Show?)

          I think you get my point Bill. This amendment goes after "money is speech" which is Buckley. Lossly, Citizens United was to determine if that same right should be extended to corporations.

          It's like a Republican saying you're going to ban late term abortions when your bill really bans all abortions. Retoriclly, the Rebublican is trying to use the poor favorabilities of late-term abortions to do a MUCH larger action.

          If the amendment was truly going after Citizens United, I would think it would be limited to "personhood."

          My comment might be nit picking but it erks me when people choose unfavorable catchwords (like calling a politician a "socialist")to score a politcal point. Not that I would suggest that Kari was being political. ;)

          • (Show?)

            No, it's really going after the effect of Citizens United and Buckley without confusing the issue in the minds of the voters and without taking an explicitly partisan stand guaranteed to doom it forever. It's easy to obfuscate around the whole "personhood" thing and make people worry about unintended consequences. The proposed amendment removes the partisan issue of appearing to target corporations while leaving unions alone. It goes right after the heart of the issue--the ability to make rules that dampen the effect of big money in politics.

  • (Show?)

    Thought about signing but then thought, " do I really need more unproductive spam from Chuck Schumer in my inbox?" ...

  • (Show?)

    The petition site really needs to have the text of the amendment right there. A lot of people aren't going to sign on if they don't know what the amendment says.

connect with blueoregon