Between the Lines: Obama Should Step Up

The Constitution must be amended to overturn Citizens United, says activist.

Comments (4)
Tuesday, March 05, 2013

In January, the Amherst-based nonprofit Free Speech for People launched a petition drive on a White House website urging President Barack Obama to use his State of the Union address to call for a Constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission.

The request did not seem so unreasonable. After all, in his 2010 State of the Union speech, Obama famously criticized the court for the ten-week-old ruling, which lifted certain restrictions on political contributions by corporations and labor unions, paving the way for unprecedented election spending. In that address, Obama urged a bipartisan effort “to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Free Speech for People—whose executive director, Amherst attorney John Bonifaz, is a longtime voting rights activist—was founded shortly after the court ruling to fight against the effects of the decision, including by pushing ahead an amendment effort. The group helped draft the “People’s Rights Amendment,” filed by U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, whose 2nd Congressional District includes much of the Valley.

The bill, filed in January, asserts that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution apply to “natural person,” not corporations. McGovern also filed a second bill that would affirm the federal and state governments’ power to regulate political spending. A number of other legislators have also filed bills that would overturn the Citizens United decision. (See “Bucking Citizens United,” January 29, 2013, www.valley

With momentum building behind those efforts, activists hoped the president would again signal his support of an amendment during his State of the Union address. FSFP’s online petition—posted on “We the People,” a White House website where citizens are invited to “petition the Obama administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country”—read, in part, “Our democracy is broken, flooded by money from corporations, billionaires and SuperPacs that puts their interests over those of the public. From big banks sinking our economy while blocking real reform to the NRA preventing sensible gun safety measures, big money forces are corrupting our politics.” It received more than 39,000 signatures.

Obama did not even mention Citizens United in his 2013 State of the Union speech. But late last month, amendment supporters did receive a somewhat promising response from the White House: “President Obama agrees with you” on the important of “fighting the influence of money in politics,” read the administrations’ response to the “We the People” petition.

The response noted earlier comments Obama has made in support of an amendment overturning Citizens United. While amending the Constitution is hard, it went on, “That’s where you come in. If this is a fight that motivates you, you need to work for it. Keep making your voice heard and encourage others to take a stand against limitless corporate spending in our elections. And speak out in favor of changes that will reduce the influence of special interests.”

The White House statement also touted Obama’s efforts to “lead by example, and change Washington from the ground up,” noting several restrictions the president has placed on lobbying within his administration.

While supporters of the proposed amendments are “happy to hear the President affirm his support,” Bonifaz said in a statement, he needs to do more. “[N]ow it’s time for him to step up and press Congress to act,” he said.

Bonifaz also noted the contradictions between Obama’s response to the petition and the recent reconfiguring of his campaign organization into a lobbying group called “Organizing for America.” That organization —like Citizens United, the conservative group at the heart of the Supreme Court case—is a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation that will accept donations from both individuals and corporations.

“All the big money wrapped up in Organizing for American is a reminder of why we need to act now to seriously address this problem with an amendment,” Bonifaz said. “More and more states are signaling that they would ratify an amendment to reclaim our democracy if Congress sent one to them. This is the time for presidential leadership to help make it happen.”

Comments (4)
Post a Comment

Cheer up, soon President Obama will be able to take out the members of Citizens United using drones. We're well on our way to a utopian paradise... weeeeeeee!

Posted by k on 3.7.13 at 9:22

So we need to restrict freedom of speech to protect freedom of speech? We need to form a special intrest group to fight special intrests groups? What a conudrum. No amount of money negates this one simple fact: One person one vote. All the money in the world doest change that. An actively participating voting negates all the money in the world. NO need to restrict peoples rights because they come together in a group, be they unions, share holders, enviromental activists or gun owners. When people come to gether to amplify their voice no need to restrict that. DOn't like what they have to say or promote? Vote differently, educate others...But please no further inroads on freedom of speech.

Posted by Paul Norton on 3.7.13 at 10:59

As a tolerant nation we cannot tolerate those who are intolerant. Any questions?

Posted by k on 3.7.13 at 14:05

This article gave me the best laugh I’ve had all week.

This is the man whose staff recently created Organizing for Action -- not Organizing for America, as the article puts it -- as a Section 501(c)(4) corporation, which means that it can accept corporate contributions of any size without having to disclose donors. We will, however, probably be able to figure out who wrote a check for $500K, since that’s the going price for personal quarterly meetings with the President according to the New York Times. That is, a personal meeting with the man who, in 2008, railed against the special interests “who write the checks and get the access to you while you get to write a letter.”

As a Section 501(c)(4) just like Citizens United, Organizing for Action will be free of all FEC scrutiny. And you think he’ll lead the charge to fetter his own organization’s freedom of speech (and that of unions, since the decision covers more than corporations, you know) and so reduce the money pouring in to his coffers?

Good luck with that.

Posted by steve kallaugher on 3.8.13 at 11:34



New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

In Satoshi We Trust?
Outside the Cage
How solid is the case for organic and cage-free egg production?
Between the Lines: Practically Organic
Does the organic farming movement make perfect the enemy of good?
Scene Here: The Kitchen Garden Farm
From Our Readers
Profiles in Survival
Young business owners in retail-rich Northampton get along by getting along.
The Burning Question
Neighbors of a proposed wood-burning plant in Springfield cry foul air