For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

[jimmy olsen]

What do you guys think, for or against the idea?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment

Hillary Clinton: 'I would consider' anti-Citizens United amendment
07/21/14 07:28 PM
By Alex Seitz-Wald

While eying a potential presidential run that would surely be boosted by deep-pocketed super PACs, Hillary Clinton said Monday evening that she's open to supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which opened the door to the outside groups and the flood of money that poured into the political process with them.

Taking questions from Facebook users at the social media giant's California headquarters Monday evening, Clinton expressed some interest in the idea. "I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines that would prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen's United decision," she said in response to a question on the measure.

Amending the Constitution is an almost impossibly uphill battle, but the idea has secured support from almost all the Democrats in the Senate, which will vote on the measure later this year.

The former first lady is currently on a book tour for her memoir "Hard Choices," which was released in June. The publicity campaign is being seen as part of a months-long rollout leading up to a decision on whether or not she'll run for president. Clinton has previously said that she'll decide by the end of the year.

On Monday, Clinton also fielded questions on a number of other issues, and proclaimed "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky to be her favorite book, while "Goodnight Moon" is the first book she plans to read to her future grandchild.

On the Malaysian airliner shot down over rebel-held territory in Ukraine, Clinton placed some blame at the feet of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "[T]here is a price to pay for this kind of behavior," she said of Putin, adding the crash victims were "murdered." On the ongoing fighting in Gaza between Israel and the Palestinians, the former secretary of state said she hopes "there can be a ceasefire soon to end the conflict."

Asked what her first action would be if she became president, Clinton responded with an answer that seemed designed to appeal to the vocal populist wing of the Democratic party. "Answering hypothetically ... the next president should work to grow the economy, increase upward mobility, and decrease inequality," she said.

For those looking for any hints about a potential 2016 run, Clinton offered a tantalizing endorsement of the state that holds the nation's first primary. "I love New Hampshire," she replied to a user who asked if she would visit the Granite State.

Clinton is on a swing through Silicon Valley, a fertile ground for donors to a potential presidential campaign. Following the Facebook Q&A, she was scheduled to do a similar event hosted by Twitter.

Clinton is expected to raise more than a billion dollars if she runs, with even more money going to an archipelago of super PACs and other outside groups supporting her. Already, three major super PACs are working on her behalf, while there are at least a half dozen smaller ones.

In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, President Obama chose a similar forum as Clinton's to endorse an amendment to roll back Citizens United, telling Reddit users that "we need to seriously consider" an amendment.

Still, Obama and his allies maintained that they would not "unilaterally disarm" in the campaign finance arms race. As long as Republicans could use super PACs, Democrats will too, they said. Clinton's allies are already using a similar line to defend their outside activism on her behalf.

[CountDeMoney]

Against
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

[dps]

Other.  I'd want to see the exact wording first.

[jimmy olsen]

76.9% in favor, if we were states that would be enough to pass.

[Caliga]

Against.  It would be a big effort to pass it, and since we are in fact a plutocracy, big money would figure out some way around it anyway.

[grumbler]

The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

I'd support a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are only legal persons for the purposes established by their rules of incorporation, but that's such an obvious truth that we won't need a constitutional amendment to make that the law of the land.  We just need to wait for a moron or two to die or retire from the court, and CU will be gone.  It is the Dred Scott decision of our day; everyone knows that it is wrong, contrary to precedent, and moronic.  I don't think you could get such a decision even 5% of the time if you randomly chose USSC justices from the list of all who have ever served.

[PDH]

As long as the amendment includes a provision that Tim gets curbstomped by a pack of drunken Samoans every time he posts a thread I am all for it.

[derspiess]

Against
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

I stand with Yi.

[CountDeMoney]

You misread it, it's Citizens United, not Fetuses United

[Valmy]

Against
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

I stand with Yi.

Do you: squee for Yi?

[derspiess]

Against
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

I stand with Yi.

Do you: squee for Yi?

That may be taking it a bit too far, even though it rhymes.

[CountDeMoney]

Makes a hell of a nice campaign button.

[garbon]

The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question.

[DGuller]

The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question.

I read it after I voted on it as well.

[LaCroix]

no. i don't think knee jerk constitutional amendments to SCOTUS decisions is generally a good idea, especially not here