TOMORROW THE SENATE VOTES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WILL OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED

[marym625]

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATORS AND LET THEM KNOW THEY NEED TO VOTE YES

https://secure2.convio.net/comcau/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=251

It won't fix everything but it's sure a good start.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. I will call first thing in the morning. Thanks for the heads up, marym625. nt

[marym625]

2. Thank you, ChisolmTrailDem!!

[spanone]

3. k&r...

[alfredo]

4. McConnell will not allow a vote.

[marym625]

6. reading about how he wants to stop it now

But damn, I hope not

[alfredo]

12. He only wants what the monied want.

[dballance]

14. How can McConnell stop a vote? This is a serious question I have. Not flippant.

I know there are a lot of arcane parliamentary rules and procedures in the Senate. I'm sure that if McConnell can use one of them to stop a vote then he will do so.

I hope Harry Reid beats McConnell back on every front though. He finally realized there was no possibility to work with the GOP and changed the filibuster rules. He should do the same now if necessary.

[marym625]

19. This doesn't answer your question

but it's a cool little video from teh Democratic Senate site

http://democrats.senate.gov/

I don't think he can.

Here's another link on the amendment though and it has links to contact your senators

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/04/1327179/-Senate-to-vote-on-repealing-Citizens-United-Monday-Something-you-can-do-that-will-take-5-minutes#

[dballance]

8. Reid still controls the Senate. He can allow a vote.

Harry Reid still controls the Senate and what bills get brought up for a vote. He'd be wise to bring up a bill in support of a Constitutional Amendment that would thwart Citizens United. It would be great to get the GOP Senators running for re-election this November on-record with their votes.

[marym625]

11. I don't think it will be stopped

I don't think that is just wishful thinking either.

[alfredo]

18. It will need a supermajority, even if McConnell doesn't filibuster. I don't see where one

Republican would vote for it. They fear McConnell and the Koch Bros more than they fear the voters.

[dballance]

20. Yes, you are correct. It would require a supermajority.

The problem for the GOP and McConnell is that they will have to vote on the bill. I'm quite certain you are correct again when you say no Republican will vote for it. Requiring the Republicans to go on-record with a "Nay" vote for a bill/amendment that would reign in the power of the 1% is a good strategy for the Democrats. Every single Democrat running against a Republican who voted "Nay" will have the ability to tell voters just how corrupt with money the GOP is.

[alfredo]

22. I don't like wedge issues, but preventing an oligarchy isn't just a wedge issue. It is

defending our democratic system.

[cstanleytech]

32. They dont fear the Kochs, they fear having to work to hide the bribe money where as

right now its perfectly legal and easy for them to accept their payoffs.

[alfredo]

74. I think the Kochs are like other congressional owners, when they buy a pol, they want

them to stay bought.

[LiberalElite]

5. K&R& Done

[grahamhgreen]

7. Kick! CALL CALL CALL!

[mulsh]

9. signed and shared on my FB page. thanks.

n/t

[marym625]

16. AWESOME!

[stage left]

10. K&R

I sent an email to my senators, marym, but it won't do any good. One of them is that well known asshole, Lindsay Graham. He will probably be leading any filibuster against this bill. The other is Tim Scott, that well known...well saying what I think he is would probably get me my first hide.

[marym625]

13. Good for you for trying

and you don't need to actually say it. We all know

[RoverSuswade]

97. You mean

"Tim Clarence Thomas Alan Keyes Ron Christie Uncle Tom Kenneth Blackwell Herman Cain Scott?"

[marym625]

110. That's just scary!

[RKP5637]

15. Thanks for posting, did it! n/t

[vi5]

17. I wonder how many Dems will vote no

And then I wonder how quickly the leaders in our party will then be out there campaigning for them against a more progressive primary opponent while at the same time whining that we need more and better Democrats in the Senate.

[alfredo]

21. McConnell will filibuster.

[vi5]

24. And many will breathe a sigh of relief...

For not having to vote on this issue and go on record.

[Jim Lane]

37. They'll still have to go on recod on the cloture vote

Cloture needs 60 votes, passage needs 67.

Best tactic for McConnell (assuming he cares nothing about the country and everything about partisan politics, an assumption I feel very comfortable about) would be to not filibuster, and give permission to some vulnerable Republicans to vote Yea when their Nay votes aren't needed.

For example, Mark Kirk (R-IL) represents a blue state, won by only 2% last time, and is up for re-election in 2016. It wouldn't surprise me if the amendment were to get Yea votes from a few Republicans like him, just not enough to pass.

[alfredo]

40. That would be the smartest route, but still many will be

On recod voting against the measure.

Even if it passes the Senate it will not come to the floor in the house.

[marym625]

47. I think that's exactly what will happen

Kirk has done that before. Wouldn't be surprised

[Reter]

62. It already needs 67 votes to pass

Constitutional Amendments can not be filibustered.

[Nye Bevan]

23. I oppose any amendment that could ban a book from being published

and so does the ACLU.

[marym625]

26. The amendment specifically states

"Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the
press.''.

[X_Digger]

84. Then it's self-defeating claptrap.

Unless you want to claim that publishing a book or a movie isn't actually 'press'.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227981894/6-3-14-Udall-Amendment-Letter-FINAL

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is the 28th Amendment:

•Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office;

•Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change denier”;

•Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party;

•A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;

•A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors;

•A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions; and

•Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats).

[Nye Bevan]

115. Ah yes, the Rupert Murdoch Exemption (nt)

[marym625]

117. so what you're saying is

That Justice JP Stevens doesn't know what this will mean to the Even pressure across the pudendum as a whole, but that he would want an amendment passed that would infringe on our civil rights further.

Good to know

And by the way, absolutely nothing close to Murdoch anywhere in anything I said

[X_Digger]

83. +1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227981894/6-3-14-Udall-Amendment-Letter-FINAL

The Udall proposal would “severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance — namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support,” wrote ACLU director Laura Murphy.

[marym625]

91. Since I posted this

And since the initial comment regarding the ACLU being against it, I have been researching their reasons. I do have concerns. I normally would have done better due diligence but never believed that Common Cause and other liberal organizations would be in direct conflict with the ACLU over something so important.

I don't believe that this will pass. I do believe that the vote itself will help bring to the forefront those who are more concerned with getting their money than the welfare of their constituency.

I am contacting Common Cause, Senators Udall and Durbin and the ACLU. I don't want to say more than I have without an understanding as to how these groups can be at odds on this. I don't expect to actually get information from all but I am trying.

Although it was only a couple times, I have not always agreed with the ACLU. I don't want to just do so now without a clearer understanding.

I greatly appreciate the information you and Nye Bevan posted.

[marym625]

98. Finally spoke with Durbin's office

No answer from Common Cause, the ACLU or Udall's office yet. Best I can say is the office is attaching the ACLU's letter to a message and will "personally hand" to the Senator. Very odd they were not familiar. Me not being familiar is one thing, but a cosponsor of the Amendment? Hmmm. Or, maybe that was an easy way to duck the concerns.

I still stand by the fact a vote will help.

[marym625]

103. Still recieving responses

Common Cause responded, in part:

"here's the most important thing: we live in a democracy. We have the ability to amend the constitution based on the will of the people. And 75% of Americans clearly support the amendment. Common Cause and the other organizations working on this didn't come up with this issue or this campaign. We are simply acting on the will of the people, and that's what democracy is about.

Take a look at this op-ed and see what you think: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/216809-bipartisan-case-for-a-constitutional-amendment-on-campaign-finance "

The Op-Ed, in part:

"Critics have claimed that the amendment would repeal the First Amendment’s free speech protections. But it does the exact opposite – the proposal is an effort to restore the First Amendment so that it applies equally to all Americans. When a few billionaires can drown out the voices of millions of Americans, we can’t have any real political debate.

The amendment would not simply benefit one party or incumbent. It is similar to bipartisan proposals introduced in nearly every Congress since 1983, when Republican Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska) was the lead sponsor. Over the years, it has been supported by many Republicans, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), and Nancy Kassebaum (Kan.), as well as many Democrats."

An article about the testimony by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens can be found here:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-supreme-court-stevens-congress-money-speech-20140430-story.html

and the testimony

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4497080/justice-stevens-senate-testimony

[X_Digger]

112. I don't care if 100% of the population support it. Fucking with rights is always wrong.

If 75% of the population supported bringing back slavery, would you support it?

[marym625]

114. Don't be ridiculous

I had to take out portions of the email because it contained things I can't quote. I guess I shouldn't have quoted at all.

I posted other links that show how what SOME of the ACLU members are saying is not what all believe. I also posted testimony from Justice John Paul Stevens for the Amendment. No one will ever convince me he would want something that would hinder civil liberties.

[X_Digger]

116. I disagree with Stevens on quite a few subjects. He's already spit on the 4th and 5th, and 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Stevens wrote the opinion, so it's not like he signed on as a 'me too' vote.

[marym625]

118. Obviously no point in us going back and forth

You have your mind set and I have mine. I thank you for bringing information to my attention. It caused me to doubt then do much more, deeper research. That researched confirmed my original position and included speaking to members of the ACLU.

I don't believe this will ever get through. But the conversation is nothing but good. I believe that corporations need to have the protection of the Constitution they deserve. None.

But I believe that this is a good Amendment.

[X_Digger]

119. No amendment that decreases rights deserves passage. Period. End of sentence.

The unintended consequences that naive but well-meaning idiots can never foresee will always come around and bite you in the ass.

[marym625]

121. I agree with what you just said

I don't believe that is an issue here. I am not even close to an idiot, but thanks for your words.

[marym625]

122. by the way

Your anger when trying to convince people of something is a real turn off. Won't help you in your endeavors. Especially when speaking to people that want the same end.

Peace

[X_Digger]

123. Heh, this isn't me angry. This is me annoyed by Udall, etc. If I thought it actually had a chance..

.. I might rise to the level of pissed.

"Where'd that baby go? It was in the bathwater just a minute ago before I threw it out..."

[marym625]

124. The baby is still in the tub. :) eom

[marym625]

111. Some further information

I wish I could attach the article but I was sent it privately and you have to be a member of to go to it. But I can tell you that the ACLU members do not agree. There is a HUGE disagreement on this. HUGE.

Also, Justice John Paul Stevens (retired) testified before Congress in favor of the Amendment. I put the link in this branch of this thread

[Voice for Peace]

25. We've got two great senators here (NM). Tom Udall has been a big driving force in this.

I get messages from him every day about this.
Martin Heinrich is also a good man.
We just need to get rid of Susana who will sell New Mexico to the Koches.

[marym625]

27. Got too many of those around

makes no sense to me. That kind of greed

[Voice for Peace]

41. I think it's all about people with very little self knowledge and/or self esteem, who have been made

to feel SPECIAL by inclusion in the big boys club. Starstruck, to be
considered so important, they become useful tools. Sometimes it's
about greed but I think it's mostly pathetic egomania.

[marym625]

58. I think it's about the money

The power, or what they perceive as power, becomes part of the greed. But more about the money

[Voice for Peace]

76. boils down to the same thing, I think.. the money makes them feel important and special.

That's all anybody really wants.

[marym625]

77. You would think that they would

Find better ways than to take enormous amounts of money and screwing constituents.

[Voice for Peace]

78. the lack of self awareness and selfesteem makes one a perfect tool for brainwashing

and being convinced they are doing good
when doing the bidding of their owners.

[marym625]

79. Do you really think they believe that?

I don't. Maybe some but I think the majority just don't care.

[tooeyeten]

29. No word

From my senators.

[Voice for Peace]

42. who are your senators? give them a call!

can't hurt.

caveat:
this advice coming to you from somebody (me)who almost never
makes a phone call for any reason. But I do write emails
and sign petitions.

[certainot]

85. martinez's best tool in NM is 770 KKOB, the limbaugh and lobos station, which would go belly up if

the university of NM was pushed to commit to finding apolitical alternatives for broadcasting their lobos games

it's hurting, and they would have to go to alternative programming without the lobos logo for community cred and advert appeal.

https://sites.google.com/site/universitiesforrushlimbaugh/

[Voice for Peace]

86. Good to know, I have no radio. My next door neighbor listens to Limbaugh, LOUD.

one day I will ask him to turn it down.

[certainot]

113. sorry to hear that. if it goes there, ask him if he can tell you anything major that limbaugh's been

correct about (he's 99.7 % right though!) bush, iraq, wall st deregulation, etc.

[tooeyeten]

28. Contacted my senator

The call was diverted to the Koch Brothers.

[Voice for Peace]

43. ohnoes, they are ubiquitous.

[marym625]

46. I thought that didn't start until after the November election

They're getting pretty cocky!

Good one! Laughed my ass off!

[madokie]

30. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe are my states senators

you reckon it would do me any good to call either? I don't
When the vote is posted I'll bet that both of them have voted against it.

[Mbrow]

36. Dude, I live in Idaho,

I know the feeling....

[cstanleytech]

31. Wanna bet that the republicans wont support it as they dont want the bribe money to dry up?

[marym625]

33. Unfortunately

That's not solely a Republican thing. Though it surely is more their thing than dems.

[cstanleytech]

34. True but the % of republicans is far higher I'm willing to wager.

[marym625]

45. I will take that wager

As long as I get 800 points

[stage left]

38. I would think that's probably a given.

Sadly.

[Dustlawyer]

35. I will call "Terrible" Ted Cruz and John "Cornholio" Coryn first thing tomorrow!

[hobbit709]

89. What will you call them?

I can think of lots of things.

[Enthusiast]

39. I've only told them a million times. Portman won't vote for anything against the GOP party line.

He is a rabid weasel.

Brown will vote for it.

[JDPriestly]

44. K&R.

[99Forever]

48. K&R

[Dont call me Shirley]

49. So proud to have Tom Udall as my Senator!

Called both Senators and the WH

[marym625]

50. Surely, that was a great thing to do

Hee hee.
Awesome!

[Uncle Joe]

51. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marym.

[marym625]

52. Thank you

Uncle Joe!

[Half-Century Man]

53. I just sent this to Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

For whatever it's worth

Honored Members of the Senate.
I ask you to please defend our country and vote in favor of Joint Resolution 19.
If you eject "We the people" from the system specifically designed to rest comfortably on their shoulders; if you turn our shared support that holds our government upright in a common yoke to drag the gargantuan wealth of a few uphill into a future which offers little hope of redemption; you cast aside the entire basis for our country in the first place.
Why fight a war to reject masters who rule by the Divine Right of Kings, to just replace them with masters who rule by the Sublime Right of Money? Why have masters at all?
Thanking you in advance
"Half-Century Man

[marym625]

54. NICE!

I would k&r that if you could to comments on a thread.

[rhett o rick]

55. Done. Thanks for posting. nm

[marym625]

56. Thank you

back

[lordsummerisle]

57. K&R n/t

[lindysalsagal]

59. My guys would already vote yes: Blumenthal and Murphy from CT

But I sent it, anyway.

Thanks!
There are probably even some dems who voted only because they knew the house wouldn't.

Sometimes I think they just take turns covering each other's butts, so that half the time they're the bad guys but half the time they're good.

It's all bs, except for Warren.

[marym625]

64. Thank you!

[Brigid]

60. We need a praying smilie.

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

This is why. But we don't have one, so :pray:

[marym625]

65. Ha! is there a suggestion board?

[Brigid]

67. Well, I suppose I could put it in ATA.

That might work.

[Segami]

61. KICK!! CALLING.......

OR IN PERSON..........

[marym625]

66. Cool!

That cone of silence looks very uncomfortable.

[WillyT]

63. K & R !!!

[Omaha Steve]

68. K&R!

[alp227]

69. I think independent progressive groups can seize this opportunity to call out senators in ads.

I say "independent progressive" since I KNOW the party establishment has too little courage to face the issue. This vote will put senators on record whether they support the corrupt political system as it is or are willing to stand up for the right thing.

[marym625]

72. I agree

The Amendment may never pass but the record on the vote will be nearly as important. Nearly

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

70. too bad they will not go for the brass ring and revoke corporate personhood.

[marym625]

73. That needs to happen too

[LoisB]

75. Yeah, good luck with that. As long as there are 41 NO votes nothing will happen.

[tritsofme]

80. 34 no votes kills a constitutional amendment.

[TeamPooka]

81. signed and shared

[marym625]

82. Thanks!

[eallen]

87. Section 3 guarantees it will have zero impact on Citizens United

People tend to overlook the fact that Citizens United was a 1st amendment case. It was about a corporation that wanted to make and distribute a movie.

The proposed amendment says this in section 3: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press."

In short, it would have zero impact on the Citizens United ruling.

It likely would lead to the McCutcheon ruling being overturned. Which would be a good thing. But that's a different case and the issue there is caps on political donations.

[Liberalynn]

92. I remember a political science professor

who was once a Democratic Ohio State Senator, said wording legislation is so difficult because you have to leave as little room for misinterpretation as possible to avoid unintended consequences. This is especially true of an amendment.

I agree though the fact that it would likely overturn McCutcheon would be a major step in the correct direction.

[yodermon]

108. OK, well then the amendment reduces to the statement "This sentence is false".

Any group spending money will just declare themselves "the press", and bob's your uncle.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

88. For those of you wanting the exact text of the Amendment

From https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text

``Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.

``Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may
distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other
artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such
entities from spending money to influence elections.

``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the
press.''.

[marym625]

90. Thanks

I should have included that. I appreciate you did.

[Liberalynn]

93. As stated above

what constitutes "press"is where this could get unintentionally dicey.

[eallen]

99. The court, wisely, has avoided doing that, as much as possible

Were the courts to get actively involved in saying what constitutes the press, or what constitutes a legitimate religion, that would quickly remove the wind from the sails of the 1st amendment.

The Supreme Court has recognized this.

So, for the most part, it takes just about any religious belief seriously. Even Scientology. And any corporation, individual, or group that wants to publish something counts as part of "the press."

Doing so does not mean that the court thinks companies are people. It means that it recognizes "the press" is meant to be a more expansive concept than just individuals. I.e., the 1st amendment was meant to protect not just individual speech, but also newspapers, magazines, and other outlets, that were commercial companies even at the time of the founding.

[yodermon]

107. Could this impact DU's ability to actually exist?

I.e. as applied to DU -

Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and Democratic Underground, LLC or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting Democratic Underground, LLC from spending money to influence elections.

Does DU's everyday, ongoing operations "spend money to influence elections"? Who is the arbiter of that question?

[X_Digger]

120. It could, yes. Our TOS kinda falls afoul of that last quoted sentence. n/t

[gollygee]

94. Done!

Thanks for this.

[world wide wally]

95. This could only pass Into law in a country that has a government which actually represents the

People. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the USA

[marym625]

96. The Patriot Act was our downfall

I know there are a bunch of things that happened to cause this. But when we legally threw civil liberties out the window, we started nailing the coffin shut.

[NorthCarolina]

100. Done! nt

[sabrina 1]

101. Thank you for the reminder.

[lark]

104. There's no way the Repugs wil repeal this.

This and repealing the Voting Rights Act should be seen together as the Repug ploy to permanently change the country for the good of the 1% and to screw the 99%. Repugs would never vote to stop Citizens United - it is their wet dream come to life.

[marym625]

105. True

but the vote alone will help with the election. True colors will be seen (by some) that are blind to it now. THEN we have a chance for the change

[YOHABLO]

106. In GA I've got Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss .. like they're going to vote to repeal .. HA HA

[marym625]

109. That is funny!

[marym625]

125. I don't know if anyone will see this

Since the thread is not listed anywhere anymore. But I wanted to congratulate everyone that filled out the form, called, emailed, shared, etc. I truly believe we made a difference.

YAY DUers!