Hillary Clinton made a surprising declaration last week. She embraced the idea of a constitutional amendment to restrict big money in politics. This seems to include reversing the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United vs FEC decision.
“We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccounted money out of it, once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment,” she said to a gathering in Iowa, an early presidential primary state.
Campaign finance reform is one her four campaign pillars — along with help for families and communities; a stronger, more balanced economy; and a strong national defense.
There are more than a dozen SuperPACs already backing her, entities not directly connected to political candidates but able to raise unlimited funds from individuals and corporate entities. These are the very sorts of entities that would be adversely affected if Citizens United is reversed. Clinton expects to raise more than a billion dollars for her own campaign.
Clinton spoke a few days following comments on a possible amendment by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s, who is eyeing his own Presidential run. “The next president of the United States needs to get a commission of really smart people and find a way to create a constitutional amendment to limit the role of SuperPACs,” Graham said on a radio program in New Hampshire, the first state to hold a presidential primary. This seems to indicate Graham is also open to revisiting Citizens United.
What in the world is going on with Clinton and Graham? Are they “seeing religion” when it comes to money in politics? Does this mean they support the Move to Amend constitutional amendment?
Hardly and no way. At least not yet!
They and other established politicians realize people are angry about big money from a few number of exceedingly wealthy individuals and corporate entities in elections – and they’re trying to tap into that anger.
The solution of reversing or ending Citizens United via a constitutional amendment, however, as Clinton now advocates, is not the same as ending corporate personhood and ending money as free speech. It’s an effort, rather, to co-opt the growing movement of people who realize the entire system is rigged against people without money — the 99%. All Hillary’s proposed constitutional amendment would do is return us to the “democracy” we had on January 20, 2010 — the day before the Citizens United decision. That wasn’t all that much better. Citizens United blew open the reality of our undemocratic political system. Her proposal would simply return us to the mythical democratic political system – where and when the economic power elite ruled politics less blatantly without us noticing.
More people are now paying attention.
Don’t be fooled, misled, or distracted. Don’t get caught up in a bait and switch.
The real solution is, in fact, a constitutional amendment – but one that goes much further than simply overturning Citizens United. And that’s one that asserts that only human beings, not corporate entities, possess inalienable constitutional rights and that money is not speech and therefore, can be regulated in elections.