Can Obama Make good on his Pledge to overturn Citizens United with a Constitutional Amendment?

New Book Reveals Obama Told Big Donors He Wants to Repeal Citizens United…and Thinks He Can (via Atlas Left)

In his new book, Ken Vogel claims that President Barack Obama told Democratic donors he believes he is in a good position to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United. The book, entitled “Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious…


Related video:

Nevada Senator Harry Reid: “Reid Calls For Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United”

6 Responses

  1. The quotation suggests that, prior to Republican abandonment of bipartisan efforts on the budget, immigration and climate change, and around the time of the passage of the PPACA, Obama was optimistic about the direction that the nation was headed. Following the 2010 “shellacking” in the midterm elections, and given the balance of power in the House and Senate since that time, there’s no realistic chance of achieving supermajority passage of a constitutional amendment, let alone state ratification.

  2. In answer to your title question, no. (When is the last time anything important and lasting has achieved 2/3 agreement of both the House and Senate?)
    A better question might be – if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court before 2017, can Obama get his nominee confirmed?

  3. I don’t think it can happen unless Dems control both House and Senate after the mid-terms. Also don’t think he will get a supermajority of State Legislatures. I want him to try, though.

  4. The Citizens United decision was when dems controlled both houses. I remember a poll at the time that showed 93% of those polled thought the Supreme Court ruling was wrong.

    And what did obama do? He did what he always does, gave a speech and then walked away.

    It might have been possible then to get Citizens United overturned through a constitutional amendment if we had had some leadership in the white house. It sure isn’t going to happen now.

  5. The idea that a constitutional amendment like this could be passed is loonytoons, to put it generously, and pure political theater. The only plausible method of neutering Citizens United I see is passing a very large tax, 80-90%,. on ALL campaign contributions (I would include Fox news). The money raised should be allocated to a general fund for voter information on candidate positions, debates, anything related to raising the awareness in voters of the truth and actual positions of the politicians involved.

    The 1% controlled GOP has made new taxes anathema, but voters are increasingly disgusted at the constant stream of negative vitriol campaigns are subjecting them to. Vitriol that in many cases is devoid of facts, total lies, and/or grossly twisted positions of opposing candidates.

    This would also be incredibly difficult to pass. It would be characterized as a tax on free speech, which I don’t think is illegal but would be presented as such. It IS a tax on billionaires who want to buy elections, which is how it would need to be portrayed to pass as well as something that could engender large grassroots support. The debate just surrounding it”s introduction could be very useful in shedding light as well. Needless to say the exact details of fund resources would be difficult, but would also be an informative debate.

    We couldn’t even get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified. Attempting to amend the constitution in this political climate is just a sop to certain constituencies in an effort to placate and distract them from doing anything useful or substantive. I REPEAT: THIS AMENDMENT IS BULL. Politicians know it will never be enacted, but can look good supporting it. It is good political theater wastes time and will PREVENT anything useful from happening.

Comments are closed.