Reed Wants Campaign Finance Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Controversial Citizens United Ruling
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, January 21st, marks the two year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 5-4 decision in the case Citizens United v. FEC, which fundamentally undermined the nation’s campaign finance laws and repealed efforts to limit the influence of special interests on U.S. elections.
And earlier this month, the Republican National Committee filed an amicus brief with a U.S. appeals court contending that in light of the Citizens United ruling, the century-old ban on direct corporate contributions directly to candidates and political parties should also be considered unconstitutional.
U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), who has long fought for meaningful campaign finance reform, today issued the following statement:
“By overturning decades of legal precedent, the Supreme Court allowed corporations to flood elections with unlimited, undisclosed money and drown out the voices and views of hardworking, individual Americans.
“It is wrong and dangerous to allow a corporate takeover of the democratic process and the rights of the American people. We must defend our democracy and reverse this misguided ruling by passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court.”
Senator Reed is a cosponsor of the Campaign Finance Constitutional Amendment, a Senate resolution that calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.
Ratifying a Constitutional amendment is a multi-step effort. The most likely process to have a Constitutional amendment ratified is for two-thirds of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House and Senate to approve of the proposal and then send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed amendment.
Senator Reed is also an original cosponsor of the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which sought to limit the impact of the Citizens United ruling by imposing comprehensive new disclosure requirements on groups that run campaign aids. Had an up-or-down vote on the DISCLOSE Act been allowed, it could have passed Congress and been signed into law. But Senate Republicans filibustered the measure, and without a single Republican vote it failed, 59-39, one vote shy of the 60 needed to advance the bill.