Posted on 09/09/2014 7:17:36 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn
The Senate on Monday advanced a constitutional amendment meant to reverse two recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending.
Republicans are likely to vote against the amendment when it comes up for a final vote, but by allowing it to proceed, ensured that it will tie up the Senate for most of the week.
More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats in the 79-18 vote advancing the amendment, well over the 60 votes that were needed.
The amendment is almost certain to fail, as it would need to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate, and then would still need to move through the House and be ratified by two-thirds of the states.
"We should have debate on this important amendment," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said before voting for cloture. "The majority should be made to answer why they want to silence critics."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would gladly debate the issue for as long as Republicans require because the amendment is necessary to keep “dark money” out of politics.
“You’re either for campaign spending reform or not,” Reid said ahead of the vote. “This constitutional amendment is what we need to bring sanity back to elections and restore Americans’ confidence in our democracy.”
Monday’s vote means Democrats will have less time to hold other political votes during the two-week session before adjourning for the midterm elections. Reid has said he also wants to hold votes on Democrats political priorities, such as equal pay for women and refinancing student loan rates.
Reid has threatened to keep senators in town over the weekend in order to accomplish all of his legislative goals. But the Senate has only two weeks to pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government funded after Sept. 30 and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Republicans have offered support for the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. FEC. They say campaign spending is a form of free speech, and that the decisions removing certain limits on spending protected First Amendment rights.
The 2010 Citizens United ruling struck down restrictions that had barred corporations and unions from spending money from their general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates. In McCutcheon, the court struck aggregate limits on individual contributions to candidates.
Democratic political groups, such as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), pushed hard for a vote, saying the issue motivates Democrats to go out to the polls.
“Citizens United gives corporate special interests the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who is up for reelection this November. “It’s wrong and I’ve been fighting it since the day the Supreme Court announced its egregious decision.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the vote was a political stunt by Democrats ahead of the midterm elections. McConnell, and most of Senate GOP leadership, voted for the cloture motion.
“It’s painfully clear the majority leader’s priorities have to due with Nov. 4,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “So it’s all politics all the time no matter what.”
The amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would authorize Congress and the states to regulate and limit fundraising and spending on federal candidates.
It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.
You’re reading this wrong. McConnell just pulled a fast one on Reid - this was never intended to pass cloture, and now that it has, the ‘rats are going to be answerable for this electioneering publicity stunt that was just supposed to fire up the base, and doubly so once the GOP squashed it.
By letting it come to the floor, the GOP is forcing the ‘rats to debate it and pick a side, where either answer gets them in trouble - either with the whack-job base or the mushy middle. Plus, it ties up the Senate and slows down the rest of Reid’s agenda. Well played, and surprisingly so, for as clumsy as the GOP has been recently.
The Senate is a joke with Democrats in charge. Not that the RINO’s would be a whole lot better, but if we can vote them out over time, eventually it would be. I can dream at least.
Good.
Senate = American House of Lords
“By letting it come to the floor, the GOP is forcing the ‘rats to debate it and pick a side, where either answer gets them in trouble - either with the whack-job base or the mushy middle. Plus, it ties up the Senate and slows down the rest of Reid’s agenda. Well played, and surprisingly so, for as clumsy as the GOP has been recently.”
I see the argument that letting it go forward will use up legislative time on a measure that is doomed to fail, though Dingy Harry has shown in the past that he’ll hold people over on holidays and through the night if he really wants something passed.
However, I don’t see where the Dims lose politically by having the issue debated. Low/no information voters—despite overwhelming facts to the contrary—think fat cats overwhelmingly back Republicans. So this is a perfect issue for the Dims to seize on to divert attention from immigration, ObummerCare, etc.
“Senate = American House of Lords”
Yep.
“We do not need the senate any longer.”
After the 17th Amendment passed, that is correct.
Yeah, they can try to re-frame it as a vote against "corporate fat-cats", etc., but "voted against the 1st Amendment" is not only true, it's simple to understand and "catchy".
Oh, and even if said vulnerable Senator votes against the bill, the opposing candidate can always run pretty much the same ad, using Reid as the target and pointing out that voting for “Senator X” is the same as voting for Reid. Even GOP incumbents will be able to use that approach.
If this wasn’t a disaster for the Dems, then outlets like Politico wouldn’t be whining so much that the GOP didn’t deny cloture.
snip
The amendment is almost certain to fail, as it would need to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate, and then would still need to move through the House and be ratified by two-thirds of the states.
True, but the same is also true for the house of reps and the presidency.
Our government has betrayed us, and we have betrayed ourselves by allowing our government to betray is.
“Let’s put it this way: would you like the be a vulnerable Senator, facing a difficult-enough already re-election campaign, and have to choose between alienating your crucial base or being hit with the label of “voted against the 1st Amendment”.”
I don’t see it that way at all. I think concern about individual liberty and constitutional rights is so far down the list of the Dim base that you would have to do a lot of digging to even get to it. They are concerned about abortion, minimum wage, open borders, and homosexual/lesbian/trans-whatever agendas.
You know what? If they put out a bill that limited campaign contributions to inside the state for all State offices and all Federal level state offices, then I would have half a mind to go along with it and see how it shakes out.
“it would need to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate”
That’s correct—67 votes. (I corrected this oversight in post 5.) Plus, it will not pass the House, and would not pass the necessary number of state legislatures.
It’s dead, Jim.
What chaps me, and the reason I posted this, is the continual enabling of leftist legislation by Republicans who vote for cloture on Dim bills knowing that even though all the Republicans later vote against the bill itself, they have ensured it will pass by their procedural vote.
” It’d be the LIV swing voter who thinks that the 1st Amendment doesn’t need any “tinkering” that would think twice about pulling that voting lever.”
I wish you were right about that, but my suspicion is that the LIV is so concerned with how many times Lindsay Lohan puked on the sidewalk last night that they are oblivious to 1st Amendment issues.
Now the stage is set for all Senators to take a side...something none of them want to do.
Does a RAT incumbent, running for re-election, want to be in a position to answer for an attempt to destroy the 1st Amendment, just before the midterms? I think not.
Dingy Harry has just set up his party for a hell of a game of "whack-a-rat"!
19 Republican stalwarts = MOLES
Add consultant work, advisory, and on the board as part of what is limited...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.