(MintPress) — Chicago became the largest U.S. city to condemn the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision on Wednesday, joining a growing list of 280 cities and six states calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the previous Supreme Court decision. The Chicago City Council passed a resolution “respectfully but emphatically” rejecting the Supreme Court decision, which gave corporations and labor unions the same rights as people, in 2010. As “people,” these groups have the ability to contribute virtually unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns already awash in special interest financing.
Move To Amend
Thus far, the burgeoning opposition network includes six states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont — which have all passed resolutions condemning Citizens United. Two-hundred-and-sixty cities and towns, including Albany, Boulder, Flagstaff, Minneapolis and Oakland among others, have passed similar resolutions. Other larger cities cities, including Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco, have passed “non-binding” resolutions in opposition to the Citizens United ruling.
The move to overturn the 5-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission began at the grassroots level, even before the Court’s decision. The largest movement, called Move To Amend, was founded in 2009. Since its creation, the movement has brought hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals together in common pursuit of “social and economic justice, ending corporate rule and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests.”
Thousands of Americans representing different political views have joined together to combat the 2010 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions, which defined corporations, labor unions and other entities as “people.” And, as “people,” these organizations can give limited direct contributions to candidates and virtually unlimited money to political action committees. This, critics charge, erodes the democratic process and tilts candidates’ interests in favor of corporate America.
The grassroots movement helps concerned citizens and activists to organize rallies, letter writing campaigns and house meetings to tell neighbors, friends and family members about this issue.
“We are calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to unequivocally state that inalienable rights belong to human beings only, and that money is not a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment and can be regulated in political campaigns,” the Move To Amend website states.
David Cobb, one of the key organizers of the Move To Amend movement, has been touring the United States, working with local groups and individuals to strengthen the numbers calling for reform. In his summer “barnstorming” tour, Cobb has submitted an appeal for popular revolution, saying, “The American Revolution is not just a rejection of monarchy as a form of rule, it is that and it’s brilliant, but it is more than that. It is also a genuine people’s uprising against illegitimate corporate rule.”
For some, talk of a people’s “revolution” may seem like something confined to radical circles. However, Cobb and others demonstrate that the idea has a mass appeal. “We are literally able to bring together the basic critique of Occupy and the basic critique of the Tea Party. There is a recognition that Wall Street and the big bankers dominate party politics in Washington. We are uniting people under the idea of a creating a true democratic republic,” said Cobb in a recent MintPress statement.
Indeed, the movement has attracted significant national attention, as 219,000 Americans have already signed the online petition. The organizers of the campaign have set a goal to collect at least 500,000 online signatures.
States and cities respond
The problem, Move To Amend members explain, is not merely limited to Citizens United and is part of a larger problem: a political system awash with special interest money which limits democracy and undermines free speech. Activists also point to the controversial 1976 SCOTUS decision Buckley v. Valeo, which defined money and political contributions as a form of free speech protected by the first amendment.
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Americans, both Democratic and Republic, oppose the notion that corporations are people. Immediately following the SCOTUS decision, a Washington Post-ABC news poll conducted February 2010 found that 80 percent of Americans opposed the decision, with 65 percent saying they “strongly” oppose the decision.
Congressional action
Discussions have not been limited to the local and state level. In Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, senate Democrats discussed the issue and generally concluded that a constitutional amendment was necessary to resolve the issue. Leading the proposal was Sen. Dick Durban (D-Ill.) who was chairing a hearing of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.
Durbin, like many senators, has opposed a constitutional amendment in response to this problem. However, after consideration, Durbin reportedly “reached the conclusion that a constitutional amendment is necessary.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) supported the decision and has previously decried the negative influence of Citizens United saying, “We are seeing our country move toward an oligarchic government. Citizens United is a part of that trend.”
While lack of transparency prevents a full account of indirect contributions made to third-party Political Action Committees (PACs), estimates for the average cost of an election suggest that corporate spending is significant. In the 2010 election cycle, about $4 billion was spent on all House and Senate races. In 2012, the presidential race is expected to shatter the 2008 spending record of $1 billion.
Passing a constitutional amendment to reform campaign spending is a lengthy, difficult process which can be achieved in one of two ways. The first and only method used for passing the 27 amendments to the constitution is through the Congress. In this method, two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve of an amendment before it is sent to the states for a vote. A minimum of three-fourths of the states must then approve any amendment in order for it to be ratified.
The other method is a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. States can then ratify amendments at the convention with a three-fourths vote in favor of proposed amendments.
Minority opposition
Although a significant majority of Americans appear poised to support a constitutional amendment, there are some minority voices expressing opposition to such a move. Corporations and labor unions, clearly, are unlikely to support such an amendment. However, there are some in Washington who believe that Citizens United was a good decision.
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expressed his support for the decision during a June 2012 speaking engagement in Washington D.C., saying, “So all Citizens United basically did was to level the playing field for Corporate America and for Union America and say, you, like a media company can participate not in giving directly to candidates, but to independently express your views about anything in this country.”
The move, although difficult, would not be unprecedented since several other countries place restrictions on the size and types of donations made to political campaigns. In France and Israel, for example, corporations are forbidden from contributing to political campaigns altogether.
In addition, France, the United Kingdom and Israel, all place caps on the amount political parties can spend during a given election cycle.