Submitted by Melissa Threadgill, communications director for the office of Sen. Jamie Eldridge
The Senate on Thursday passed a bipartisan resolution calling for the United States Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, restoring the first amendment and ending unlimited outside spending in elections.
“This is a growing problem that needs to be fixed,” Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) said. “Corporate spending has reached exorbitant levels and it is destroying the civility of the political process. We are facing a serious and direct threat to our democracy and I urge Congress to take immediate action.”
Senator Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton), lead sponsor of the resolution, said, “In two short years, the Citizens United decision has upended our election system, and the voices of ordinary Americans risk being drowned out by the tens of millions of dollars that are being poured into attack ads paid for by corporate donors. The problem is real, resulting in a strong grassroots effort across the Commonwealth coming together to support the only effective, long-term solution: passing a constitutional amendment that will overturn this misguided, destructive decision. I'm proud of the Senate, under the leadership of Senate President Murray, for passing this resolution today and sending a strong message that our democracy isn't for sale.”
“We are delighted that the Senate has taken bipartisan action to address this disastrous decision,” said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. “A campaign for a Constitutional Amendment is no easy task, but the US Supreme Court left us no choice. Only with a constitutional amendment can we address the problem of money in politics that it, and other decisions, has created. Passing this resolution has put Massachusetts on the forefront of that critical effort, which, as the cradle of liberty, is where we should be.”
A poll of Massachusetts voters conducted in Feb. by 7 News and Suffolk University revealed that 83 percent of Democrats polled, 73 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of independents oppose the Supreme Court’s decision.
During the 2010 elections, the first since the Supreme Court’s decision, non-candidate spending reached nearly $400 million, nearly 60 percent higher than spending during the 2006 midterm elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Kristin
3:20 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
How about Voter ID?????????? That would help with massive fraud!
arnold
3:19 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Apparently Senator Eldridge and the state democrat mafia have had no problems when the public employees unions and organized labor donated obscene amounts to their coffers but now want to overturn the Supreme Court ruling when business want their voices to be heard.
Their thug-in-chief has already usurped the congress by directing Holder abdicate his sworn duty to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and eviscerated our Immigration laws by ruling by fiat to abandon enforcement. And now our corrupt STATE legislators are espousing overthrow of Supreme Court rulings.
DeLeo, Murray, Eldridge, and the rest of the democrat gang keep looking for more ways to TAKE money from the citizens and businesses to keep their place at the public trough. At least this has kept eldridge from advancing some other tax supported agenda benefiting ILLEGALS - by far his favorite cause.
pf
7:07 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
^^^ An angry blogger? That's weird.
Lee Wright
2:06 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
This is an important issue, though not in the way Eldrige and other proponents believe.
- This is an argument about speech, and those of us who truly believe in the First Amendment find the attempts to reduce the ability of individuals to band together to express a political opinion, be it as a union, corporation, or other type of organization, abhorrent. It is these efforts to limit speech that are the real threats to representative democracy.
- The unstated premise is that the electorate is ignorant and only believe what they hear on TV. in addition to greatly underestimating voters, proponents of limits on campaign spending by groups ignore the fact that we have more opportunities to communicate with one and other more cheaply and easily than ever before. Anyone with an Internet connection, an e-mail account, a blog, a Facebook page, and a Twitter account has the most powerful communication tools than at any time in history.
- The growing complexity of campaign finance, including attempts such as this, ultimately benefit incumbents. Citizens deserve vigorous competition for their votes, something that's sorely lacking in our one-party state. Campaign finance rules and all the rest benefit the professional political class and reduce the threats of challengers.
- If the goal is to "get money out of politics," as is often claimed, we can start by taking the ROI out of donating money to elections by reducing the size and scope of government.
Iron Mike
2:05 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Voters should be VERY wary of any cause JamieBoy supports.
He spent two (2) full YEARS pushing his transgender bathroom bill while Evergreen Solar went bankrupt with our $54 Million, and Fidelity moved 5,000 clean / green jobs OUT of STATE!
His hypocrisy in condemning 'outside and corporate money' is astounding, given the number of special interest groups – many from out of state – that contribute to his campaigns.
“...restoring the first amendment”. What a joke! You should hear JamieBoy's version of our 1st Amendment. He hates our 2nd Amendment too.
Ask Jamie why he hasn't DEMANDED that our voter rolls be purges, - DEMANDED Show ID to Vote, - and DEMANDED an explanation from Deval Patrick why he hasn't fired Carl Stanley McGee!!
Carl Stanley McGee is the openly gay man Patrick appointed to the Gaming Commission – even though he committed a sexual assault on a 15-year old boy in Florida in 2008.
Keep voting for Democrats Folks, and expect nothing but more of this stuff in the years to come.
Neil Licht
2:04 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
So, pass a law!! Constitutional ammendments take at least 2 years and require a majority of states to pass. The corps will simply have 2 years to buy the election results and thus, it is a recipie for failure.
Sounds great but its yet another smart "we want to look like we serve the public" political strategies.
If the congress was serious, it would simply pass a law that could reign in corp spending and word it in a way that fit into the SC explanation of its finding.
Neil Licht, Marlborough
Amy Buttiglieri
11:43 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
I may be asking a silly question here, so pardon my ignorance: does this over-turn include spending by unions, as well?