Skip to main content

UNITED STATES ? JANUARY 20: Move to Amend holds a rally at the Supreme Court to "Occupy the Courts" and mark the second anniversary of the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case on Friday, Jan. 20. 2012. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call) ** TCN OUT **
Received this e-mail today from Senator Tom Udall (D. NM):
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, special interest spending in our elections has absolutely exploded.

But now, in its misguided decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court is again chipping away at the safeguards protecting our election system from the corrupting influence of money.

Momentum is building for real, lasting, wholesale campaign finance reform. Today is your chance to weigh in on the debate.

Sign the petition and demand that Washington restore the authority of the people to regulate campaign finance.

Reforming our broken campaign finance system has always been one of my highest priorities. In Congress I’ve led the charge for a constitutional approach to put a stop to Citizens United. And you can be sure I’ll be do everything in my power to fight back against McCutcheon as well.

Our elections should be about which candidate has the best ideas, not who can collect the most campaign contributions.

Super-wealthy individuals shouldn’t have the power to shift the focus of an election away from what matters to the middle class just by cutting a check. Washington needs to pass laws that will strengthen our campaign finance system to stop the spread of money in politics and protect the interests of the middle class.

Over the coming weeks and months, the debate over money and politics is going to be front-and-center. I want to make sure you have your say. Sign our petition demanding that Washington shine a light on the dark corners of our campaign finance system.

Thank you for your support on this issue.


Click here to add your name:

Originally posted to pdc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by New Mexico Kossaks and The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tom Udall has been great on pushing back (6+ / 0-)

    against Citizens United and for the DISCLOSE act which would at least add transparency to that shocking flow of unstricted money.  

    He has also been a tireless champion of filibuster reform and not just for nominations.  

    In fact, I could hardly wish for a better senator.  Back when he was in the House he was one of the few Democrats to vote against the invasion of Iraq and the imposition of the Patriot Act.  Go, Tom!  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:09:29 AM PDT

  •  Good argument but wouldn't 13 states block it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, lgmcp

    given the impact of big money. Amendments have been obsolete for several decades. Further, Congress will be excluded from making campaign finance laws when the Court rules, as announced in McCutcheon, it would be a conflict of interest, so an amendment would be merely more blood for the vampire Court to live on, in its own supervision of elections. Amendments say whatever the Court says they say- our current problem, the 28th ignored as readily as the 1st.

    Udall could propose a bill, to be passed on up or down vote abrogating McCutcheon etc. and use the exceptions clause to protect it from Court review. The 2014 election could be about getting the necessary majorities in Congress to do that.

    •  Very interesting. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I thought that once the Court had ruled unequivocally, that a constitutional amendment was really the only viable route, no matter how difficult.  But, good point that an amendment itself would be subject to arbitrary reinterpretion by an hostile Court.

      I am doubtful that a bill with an exceptions clause would even work -- can you say more about that?  But if it did, would certainly be far more feasible.  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:37:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress routinely abrogates cases, I think Dodd- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Frank is listed at the Wikipedia entry as the most recent instance. Overturning McCutcheon would be part of a regulatory scheme. The more obscure part is using the exceptions clause, which is there but rarely used, to strip the Court of appellate jurisdiction to overturn a new improved McCain-Feingold type statute. Ex Parte McCardle is a precedent for such Congressional exceptions at Art III, Sec. 2.  

  •  Tom Udall for 2016? (0+ / 0-)

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:58:18 PM PDT

  •  udall's the enemy of free speech (0+ / 0-)

    says paul gessing today, head of the rw ayn randian free market orgasmic think tank - the rio grande foundation - who is a regular friendly guest on the NM limbaugh superstation KKKOB and with that megaphone is able to reach most of the state with whatever BS he can come up with - all with the NM lobos sticker on it.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:59:22 PM PDT

  •  Wish I could but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belinda ridgewood

    I wish I could support this amendment.  BUT it does not address corporate personhood head on, which is necessary to truly overrule Citizens United. If all we do is say the there is a right to regulate money in politics, there will just be another challenge and another and another. Does it matter whether Charles Koch personally, Koch Industries or "Americans for Prosperity" (their own prosperity, not ours) spends the money or buys the ad time? Or Adelson, or who ever.   An adequate amendment would say two things:
    1) Corporations (for profit, non-profit, unions, or other artificial entities) are not Persons for the purposes of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and
    2) Money is not Speech for the purpose of the First Amendment protection of "political speech" and therefore both contributions and independent political spending may be regulated, at both the state and federal levels. The freedom of the press shall not be abridged.

    Sen T. Udall is a great guy - I just wish he had not split the amendment as he did.    

    Corporations ≠ People

    by vbrowan on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:07:57 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site