112th Congress HJRes78 – A Citizens United Amendment
Ii I analyze any more Democrat Bills, I will have to come up with a new category for them.
[Congressional Bills 112th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.J. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)] 112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 78 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 12, 2011 Ms. Edwards (for herself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: ``Article-- ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office. ``Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.''. <all>
This is similar to my second proposed amendment in that it works to deny Constitutional protection to corporate political spending. This is probably the least disruptive method from a legal standpoint, but it retains the “regulating the hand that feeds” conflict of interest problem.
It does not include organized religion, which should not be engaging in political campaigns but do anyway.
To be fair, it does not include unions either. On the other hand, unions are associations of actual people, not “artificial persons”. They do not pose the same threat to our sovereignty as corporations. Perhaps someday an adjustment will need to be made, but that becomes a slippery slope problem.
The freedom of the press must be maintained, though the corporate media undermines the Fourth Estate through the corrupt use of ownership powers.
Constitutional Authority Statement:
[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)] [House] [Pages H6097-H6098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]By Ms. EDWARDS: H.J. Res. 78. [[Page H6098]] Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V of the Constitution.
- The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
- or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
- which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
- ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
- or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
- that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
- and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
This is a simple and straightforward answer to Citizens United. Without a mandate, I think that there would be many partisan battles over regulation. Especially when one party confuses corporations with living people.
I also think it needs an enacting clause. Other than that, I like it.