Pantsless Progressive

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), left, introduced legislation Friday aimed at removing corporate cash from politics by amending the constitution to outlaw corporate money in elections. Cleverly named Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED), the law would reverse Citizens United.
From Suzy Khimm’s interview with Rep. Deutch:

Suzy Khimm: I understand this amendment was directly inspired by Occupy Wall Street. Tell me more about how this all came to be.
Ted Deutch: One thing that’s been clear throughout the protests all across the country is that people are tired of a political system that they believe doesn’t respond to their needs, that doesn’t reflect the interests of the American people, and that caters to the corporations that have occupied Washington for far too long. […]
SK: So corporations don’t have any right to participate in elections? Why should they be treated differently than, say, labor unions or nonprofit organizations ? Unions also benefited from Citizens United, but, as I understand it, they wouldn’t be affected by your amendment.
TD: Corporations that are formed for the purpose of earning profits do not have the constitutionally protected rights that natural citizens have. They should not spend their corporate dollars, Treasury dollars to influence outcome of elections.
[As for unions and nonprofits], the amendment gives Congress the authority to create a campaign finance system that ultimately is fair across the board . . . that gives the government back to the people. The amendment specifically reverses Citizens United in making clear that for-profit corporations shouldn’t be spending money on elections. Any other group of people, group of individuals, is going to be in same position as they are now.
SK: If there’s such overwhelming support for these kind of changes though, why not wait for the legal system to come to that conclusion?
TD: [Justice] Stevens vehemently disagreed with the position of the court, legal scholars across America have disagreed . . . but there is every reason to believe the Supreme Court may well continue down this path and move beyond Citizens United and allow corporations to contribute to candidates directly. I don’t believe the American people should wait to see if this is the direction that the Supreme Court goes. We ought to act now. It’s what the framers of the Constitution and people across America understand. [read more]

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), left, introduced legislation Friday aimed at removing corporate cash from politics by amending the constitution to outlaw corporate money in elections. Cleverly named Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED), the law would reverse Citizens United.

From Suzy Khimm’s interview with Rep. Deutch:

Suzy Khimm: I understand this amendment was directly inspired by Occupy Wall Street. Tell me more about how this all came to be.

Ted Deutch: One thing that’s been clear throughout the protests all across the country is that people are tired of a political system that they believe doesn’t respond to their needs, that doesn’t reflect the interests of the American people, and that caters to the corporations that have occupied Washington for far too long. […]

SK: So corporations don’t have any right to participate in elections? Why should they be treated differently than, say, labor unions or nonprofit organizations ? Unions also benefited from Citizens United, but, as I understand it, they wouldn’t be affected by your amendment.

TD: Corporations that are formed for the purpose of earning profits do not have the constitutionally protected rights that natural citizens have. They should not spend their corporate dollars, Treasury dollars to influence outcome of elections.

[As for unions and nonprofits], the amendment gives Congress the authority to create a campaign finance system that ultimately is fair across the board . . . that gives the government back to the people. The amendment specifically reverses Citizens United in making clear that for-profit corporations shouldn’t be spending money on elections. Any other group of people, group of individuals, is going to be in same position as they are now.

SK: If there’s such overwhelming support for these kind of changes though, why not wait for the legal system to come to that conclusion?

TD: [Justice] Stevens vehemently disagreed with the position of the court, legal scholars across America have disagreed . . . but there is every reason to believe the Supreme Court may well continue down this path and move beyond Citizens United and allow corporations to contribute to candidates directly. I don’t believe the American people should wait to see if this is the direction that the Supreme Court goes. We ought to act now. It’s what the framers of the Constitution and people across America understand. [read more]

Notes

  1. haii-kevinn reblogged this from katcameron
  2. katcameron reblogged this from climateadaptation
  3. thiscallsforvodka reblogged this from pantslessprogressive
  4. chrisrice95 reblogged this from pantslessprogressive
  5. nikatronz reblogged this from climateadaptation
  6. hystermajesty reblogged this from feministladyjizz
  7. bandeapartzine reblogged this from pantslessprogressive
  8. joaosodre reblogged this from thegreenurbanist
  9. feministladyjizz reblogged this from thegreenurbanist
  10. postlude reblogged this from pantslessprogressive
  11. margiecakes reblogged this from luminosa
  12. beyondredversusblue reblogged this from pantslessprogressive and added:
    Does anyone feel this is a major stride or just a tiny step in a huge movement?
  13. cassandrasophia reblogged this from blondesnotbombs and added:
    He’s got the message it seems. Good luck guy!!! You can do it! //via
  14. challengingduelism reblogged this from thegreenurbanist and added:
    Please read the full article on the original blog for interview and shiznizzle. Challenging Duelism sez: Interesting...
  15. apieceofjakeypoo reblogged this from pantslessprogressive
  16. frsh2dth reblogged this from thegreenurbanist
  17. bugsarefriends reblogged this from pantslessprogressive
  18. blondesnotbombs reblogged this from matthewedwards and added:
    I really hope this goes somewhere; I won’t be surprised when it (probably) doesn’t. At least it’s a gesture in the right...
  19. nosferican reblogged this from thegreenurbanist
  20. njytolentino reblogged this from thegreenurbanist
  21. thegreenurbanist reblogged this from pantslessprogressive
  22. pantslessprogressive posted this