"I do not believe that people fought and died for democracy so that billionaires can buy elections."

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Senator Sanders has his heart in the right place, but why try to amend the Constitution when

Congress already has the remedy to work at overturning SCOTUS' disastrous Citizen's United ruling?

It only takes a new law to pass Congress to stop this pro-corporate SCOTUS from ever deciding the financing of election campaigns again.

Supreme Court decisions legalizing private interest financing of election campaigns have enabled a vast increase in private interest control over our federal government. The 1 percent contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in election campaigns to empower themselves and disempower the 99 percent. To keep that money flowing to themselves, elected officials waste enormous sums of taxpayer's money on government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, wars and tax cuts for the rich. The 1 percent thus receive enormous returns on their political investments. By contrast, the government uses the resulting deficits to justify cuts in needed spending on education, health care, environment, safety and infrastructure that would benefit the 99 percent who do not buy elections and influence.

Here is why a constitutional amendment is not needed to end this disenfranchisement of the 99 percent. The revolutionary leaders who wrote the Constitution, fresh from overthrowing the tyranny of King George, included sufficient checks and balances on all three branches of government - including the courts - to prevent the kind of tyranny we now suffer.

Under our existing Constitution, Congress already has the power to stop the court from making any more of the decisions that have allowed the 1 percent to buy elections. Then Congress can pass legislation reversing the unconstitutional decisions the court has made to corrupt elections.

Here is the provision the founding fathers included:

The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make (US Constitution, Article III, Section 2).
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/6089:constitutional-amendment-not-needed-congress-already-has-a-remedy

Why is Senator Sanders taking the far more difficult course of trying to amend the Constitution when he should be campaigning for Congress to pass a law forbidding SCOTUS from ever taking on another case regarding financing election campaigns? That's what I'd like to know.