Bernie Sanders’ Saving American Democracy Amendment

Warning that “American democracy in endangered,” Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday, December 8, 2011 proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that allowed unrestricted and secret campaign spending by corporations on U.S. elections. The first constitutional amendment ever proposed by Sanders during his two decades in Congress would reverse the narrow 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.

Show your support – sign the petition. Thanks Miles Jaffe for sending us the link.

majestic

Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

13 Comments on "Bernie Sanders’ Saving American Democracy Amendment"

  1. Anonymous | Dec 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm |

    GO BERNIE GO BERNIE GO!

  2. FusionSaint | Dec 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

    GO BERNIE GO BERNIE GO!

  3. Mysophobe | Dec 12, 2011 at 10:54 pm |

    Bernie and Ron Paul are the only two guys in DC that I don’t automatically assume are lying when they speak. We should just give everyone else in congress an indefinite paid vacation and immediately implement every policy that these two men agree on, then let them hammer out the rest of the details in public debates. Obama can keep time and the supreme court can serve cocktails and snacks to the audience.

  4. Mysophobe | Dec 12, 2011 at 6:54 pm |

    Bernie and Ron Paul are the only two guys in DC that I don’t automatically assume are lying when they speak. We should just give everyone else in congress an indefinite paid vacation and immediately implement every policy that these two men agree on, then let them hammer out the rest of the details in public debates. Obama can keep time and the supreme court can serve cocktails and snacks to the audience.

  5. The amendment specifies for-profit corporations should not have personhood.  What about non-profits like think-tanks, religious organizations, etc.  Shouldn’t they be excluded too?

  6. The amendment specifies for-profit corporations should not have personhood.  What about non-profits like think-tanks, religious organizations, etc.  Shouldn’t they be excluded too?

    • is LACK of inclusion really an issue? extensions of the law can easily be considered once the initial precedent is set. what’s important is getting _something_ done in the right direction.

      no law will ever be perfect. a major flaw of the american mindset is that, if a problem isn’t dealt with in its absolute entirety (according to all parties), then it is essentially ineffectual and best ignored.

  7. This guy on the other hand, I’d absolutely vote for President.

  8. This guy on the other hand, I’d absolutely vote for President.

  9. is LACK of inclusion really an issue? extensions of the law can easily be considered once the initial precedent is set. what’s important is getting _something_ done in the right direction.

    no law will ever be perfect. a major flaw of the american mindset is that, if a problem isn’t dealt with in its absolute entirety (according to all parties), then it is essentially ineffectual and best ignored.

  10. where “inclusion” means “parties to be included in the amendment”, as in, those who would be [rightfully, IMHO] denied personhood under the law.

  11. where “inclusion” means “parties to be included in the amendment”, as in, those who would be [rightfully, IMHO] denied personhood under the law.

  12. where “inclusion” means “parties to be included in the amendment”, as in, those who would be [rightfully, IMHO] denied personhood under the law.

Comments are closed.