Sen. Al Franken, who is wonderful, has moved beyond seeking more disclosure (which the Republicans won't accept) and is now moving toward a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. He's moving his petition everywhere, and it will get a lot of traction.
But as I've mentioned, overturning Citizens United isn't that easy. It's fine to say we want to do it, and an entirely different task to write the legislation and deal with all of the First Amendment ramifications. And it still won't stop rich people from spending their own money in unlimited ways.
I don't know; maybe we have to figure out some more creative solutions. Mandate that all candidates for president and US Senate accept only public financing and match all independent expenditure spending with more public money. And then go back to the "original intent" of the US Constitution: In 1800, each member of Congress represented about 12,000 people. That would work fine today -- expand the size of the House of Representatives to guarantee that at no point does any member have to seek election from a district with more than, say, 50,000 people. That's a number you can reach without big money (see: SF district elections). Do the same for every state Legislature. Yes, more money on government -- but less money in politics. I'll take the tradeoff.
Most Commented On
- It was precisely because I read the article that I deduced that - May 22, 2013
- The only people who can overturn a SCOTUS decision are the - May 22, 2013
- PG&E power is 605 sustainable as long as you accept that - May 22, 2013
- Yet if you visit Detroit, they complain about the opposite - May 22, 2013
- More curious, perhaps, is how - May 22, 2013
- The thing about stereotypes is that they are mostly true. - May 22, 2013
- You can go off-grid - May 22, 2013
- Massachusetts voters, not just those in Boston, - May 22, 2013
- More often, the richest 1% get out of paying taxes altogether! - May 22, 2013
- and you're not partisan? - May 22, 2013