wistahpatsfan

McConnell responds to Obama Citizens United amendment VIDEO | The Daily Caller

TAMPA, Fla. — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told The Daily Caller Thursday that President Obama’s call to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling is “an act of genuine radicalism.”

...“I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote on the website. “Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

“It’s an act of genuine radicalism,” McConnell said when asked about his reaction to the president’s statement. “We haven’t amended the First Amendment in 235 years. The First Amendment is the core of not only freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, and the rest, but most important, freedom of speech,” McConnell said. “And when the founders were thinking of freedom of speech, they were thinking of political speech.”

So ammending the Constitution is RADICAL? If there was any doubt that McConnell was in the corporate tank, I think this removes it.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DarrylS

Corporations are people...

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

wistahpatsfan

For the record, I don't hear a lot from Dems supporting Obama on this. I know my Rep McGovern has been very vocal about it but can't seem to get much traction from his colleagues. Big cash cow at risk here.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

patsfan13

Curtailing the The First Amendments protection of political speech is radical.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patsfanin Philly

He is right, just as Dems were right to say the same thing when Republicans were talking about a flag burning amendment. It has only been amended twenty times or so in the last two hundred plus years ( not counting the Bill of Rights)....

__________________
Um, Mr. Brady, can we line up?

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

I don't know about individual politicians but I do know that the Democratic platform supports amending the constitution to reverse Citizens United.

The Republicans have vowed to fight such a move - in spite of the fact that only 25% of Americans feel that there is an intrinsic right to unlimited campaign spending.

Democratic Platform Supports Amending Constitution to Reverse Citizens United


Also all of the following Democrats have introduced bills to either drastically modify or outright reverse the decision in either the house or the senate.

Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Mark Begich (D-AK), Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Max Baucus and Senator Jon Tester, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Rep. Kurt Schrader, Rep. Donna Edwards, Rep. Ted Deutch, , Rep. Betty Sutton, Rep. Jim McGovern, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. John Yarmuth and Rep. Walter Jones, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Adam Schiff, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Michael Bennet (D-C), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Rep. Kurt Schrader Senator Max Baucus, Rep. Leonard Boswell, Rep. Donna Edwards and Rep. Paul W. Hodes.


There are also numerous bills in state legislatures awaiting disposition.

Citizens United v. FEC Constitutional Remedies: List of local, state and federal resolution efforts | People For the American Way

IcyPatriot

At first I was against the ruling and now I feel the ruling was correct. It is dangerous for the citizens of this country to give corporate media outlets free speech rights and not give them to corporate (other) outlets. One only needs to look at the countries where the government controls the media to see how dangerous it can be.

As with personal free speech sometimes it's tough to take and certainly that big money is a part of it can be considered dangerous. But I'm not comfortable the Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post be given exclusive rights on free speech - there should not be anything exclusive regarding free speech except what is already banned in the free speech category.

I know some here really like Obama which is their right. I'm on the fence with him - I like some things and others i am just not sure. But one thing I am sure of is Obama is not a free speech man. he may walk the walk but it's just a show. Never has a sitting President spent so much time and money quieting the voices of his detractors - a dangerous thing that even Obama fans should wake up and see. He's a good man with a dangerous side to him.

One of the reasons our fore fathers created the 3 branches of government in this country. If you agree with free speech you must question Barack Obama's agenda.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

But Citizens United took "free speech" out of the realm of "free" and put a price on it....which takes away equality since the most heard speech becomes the property of those not with something say but those with the most amount of money to spend.

I understand not wanting the government to control the media - but why are more comfortable with the idea that big money can control it, instead?

patsfan13

The Left is always looking to regulate Political speech.

The people who wrote the Constitution recognized how dangerous this was.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

IcyPatriot

I mentioned the money aspect to it - however IMO balancing the playing field is more important to me. Mrs. PF - corporations with big money are already influencing politics and it's all done out of our reach. Are the people against this going to fight that with the same fervor they fight this. Are those politicians listed above going to fight the money they see in DC from the same corporations they fight in this?

Perhaps part of it is those in DC like allowing free speech only to those who pay to have it outside of the reach of the American publics ear. They can control the corporations that are willing to pay in DC and they fear they have no control over the speech outside of DC. All the signs are there for everyone to see - politicians are afraid of free speech when money is behind it and it's not controlled in secret meetings outside of the public's reach.