Admittedly, the hardworking staff attended the Jerry Orbach School of Law (& Order) for only 12 years, but all this hubbub from the left about reversing Citizens United (the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited expenditures by corporations, unions, and individuals to promote or oppose political candidates) seems to be perpetrating a fraud on the voting public.
Take, for instance, the absolute pandermonium in last night’s Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial debate. In her attempt to saddle every liberal hobbyhorse in the stable, Attorney General Martha Coakley repeatedly insisted that she has “worked hard to eliminate Citizens United.”
Except to eliminate Citizens United, one of two things has to happen: 1) the Supreme Court overturns its own decision (your stare decisis aside goes here) or 2) the U.S. Constitution is amended.
Worked hard on either of those, Ms. Coakley?
Ditto for yesterday’s Boston Globe Letter to the Editor from Anne Borg and Marilyn Peterson of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.
Put up a fight vs. super PAC money
THANK YOU for calling attention to the outsize role super PAC money is poised to play in the Massachusetts governor’s race (“Follow the money,” Capital, Aug. 29). We urge citizens to demand that their senators and representatives in Congress pursue every avenue to stop the corrupting influence of big money on our political system. Tell them to change the campaign finance laws, reverse recent Supreme Court decisions permitting the unfettered flow of money, and establish public funding of elections to replace private purchasing of elections.
Tell Congress to reverse recent Supreme Court decisions? Seriously?
Refresher course in amending the Constitution:
The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention’s proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Good luck with that, eh? It’s a lot easier to just dupe the true believers, isn’t it?