Minnesota congressman proposes constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United ruling

  • Article by: Associated Press , Associated Press
  • Updated: February 11, 2013 - 11:49 AM
  • 15
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
zekefaxFeb. 11, 13 8:34 PM

Good luck Rick but you're tilting at windwills. The Pacs will just buy the votes to defeat any effort to change this law.

11
4
csjohn1Feb. 12, 13 7:40 AM

Corporations are not people. Unions are not people. Wealth must not bet extra votes. Free speech is not money. If you want to buy a platform or congressman to do your bidding at least step up and make yourself known. The Supreme Court did democracy no favor with the Citizens United decision. But will be find enough members of congress to quit feeding at the hog trough of money to reform the system? Is media prepared to forgo the millions in advertising revenue to restore do semblance of integrity to our elected officials?

34
2
hitch22Feb. 12, 13 7:58 AM

People should be afraid of any political party seeking "fix" how elections are funded. That is code for trying to game the system in their favor.

5
27
formergopFeb. 12, 13 8:14 AM

We should get it a ballot to let the voters decide.

19
2
wayne5040Feb. 12, 13 9:54 AM

csjohn1: contributing money to a political campaign is not free speech? I think you're wrong. Political campaigns are about ideas, and standing with or against a political idea is a form of free speech and should be protected. Just because you are formed as a corporation should not limit your free speech. It is the same thing as corprations donating money to charitable causes; they agree with the "idea" that the charity represents. If you're going to limit free speech for political campaigns, then you have to limit free speech towards charitable causes too. You can't have it both ways. Besides, there are real world limits to a corporations political giving. All campaign contributions are public information. Corporations risk the wrath of the public, the shareholders, and their employees when they take sides. Not to mention the candidate risks being associated with a corporation or corporations.

1
26
imperatorgFeb. 12, 1310:37 AM

It is only free speech if you are willing to put your name behind it. If a corporation or individual wants to donate to a political campaign but is too cowardly to admit they are doing it I do not believe they should be allowed to donate. Man up or shut up.

20
2
jepop90Feb. 12, 1312:22 PM

Thank goodness that at least one of our elected officials is trying to do the right thing. The Citizens United ruling is the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court and needs to be over turned.

20
2
jepop90Feb. 12, 1312:29 PM

Thank goodness that at least one of our elected officials is trying to do the right thing. The Citizens United ruling is the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court and needs to be over turned.

12
1
EleanoreFeb. 12, 1312:59 PM

This is an ethical and proper thing to do, but isn't there a faster way. There is no reasonable way to justify corporations of groups of people as sperate entities with civil rights of their own on the same level as individual citizens. This SCOTUS ruling was simply wrong, and should be negated as such based on another challange to to brought by the federal government, and required of the SCOTUS. that seems faster to coorection than a CA.

10
1
stmosquitoFeb. 12, 13 1:26 PM

Free speech is a right for all, but the CU ruling officially admitted that, the more money you have, the more important your voice. Isn't that right, NRA?

16
5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT