Rick Nolan calls for campaign-finance constitutional amendment

WASHINGTON — Even U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan said he doesn’t expect Congress to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United this session, but he’s going to try doing so anyway.
Nolan, a Democrat, will introduce a resolution calling for such an amendment on Tuesday. The language of the proposed amendment would narrow the protections of the Constitution to individuals only and give lawmakers the power to regulate spending and fundraising connected to campaigns and elections (formal language is here).
By Nolan’s count, the amendment will be one of nearly 100 bills or resolutions introduced by members of Congress since 2010 seeking to overturn or whittle away at the Citizens United decision, which opened the door to unlimited political contributions from corporations and labor unions and brought about the rise of deep-pocketed super-PACs. But Nolan said he has no illusions Congress will get around to passing anything along those lines any time soon.
“I have every confidence that, whether or not this resolution can be passed during this particular Congress, I have no doubt that it ultimately will be passed,” he said at a Monday press conference. “It wouldn’t surprise me if it took five, 10 years.”
Ben Manski, a spokesman for the group Move to Amend, agreed with Nolan. He said the group, which backs Nolan’s amendment, said is focused on building public support and pressuring Congress to move on campaign finance reforms in the future.
Activists founded Move to Amend in 2009, as the Supreme Court was considering Citizens United. The day the decision came down, they launched a campaign to overturn it.
This is the first time Move to Amend has endorsed legislation on the national level. Manski called it the "north star for the movement," and said the group is willing to work “for five years, for 10 years, however long it takes” to pass new campaign finance measures.
“We are working to build a movement capable of compelling Congress to act,” he said. “We are creating the public power, the pressure, that they will not have the choice to do anything else.”
There are, of course, significant hurdles to passing such an amendment. Republicans oppose overturning Citizens United, and they’ve blocked two attempts in the Senate to pass a law requiring more disclosure from super-PACs that accept corporate or union donations. The House, with its GOP majority, hasn’t considered such legislation.
Constitutional amendments require two-thirds support from members of the House and Senate, and then ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures around the country. Alternatively, two-thirds of state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention, but that’s never happened. State Sen. John Marty has filed a bill in the Minnesota Legislature calling for such a convention if Congress doesn’t move forward with an amendment.
Republicans have opposed amendments with language similar to Nolan’s, saying the first section (which reads, “The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only”) could be interpreted as stripping away rights for companies and organizations that wouldn’t fall under the category of political speech. Nolan's office said there would have to be accommodating statutory changes preserving those rights before an amendment like this takes effect.
Good government groups say something must be done to limit outside money in campaigns. Outside groups spent more than $1.3 billion on federal races during the 2012 election cycle, according to the Center on Responsive Politics. Nolan’s race in the 8th District was one of the most expensive House contests in the country — groups spent $9.3 million there alone (though not all of that came from super-PACs).
Nolan has long said he would work on campaign finance reform during his second tenure in the House. The constitutional amendment resolution will be his first piece of legislation this session.
“Clearly, the need for fundamental change has never been more apparent than what it is today,” Nolan said.
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
Related Tags:
More like this
- Nolan to join likely futile Democratic efforts to rein in political spending
- Beyond Citizens United: Fixing the American elections system
- How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role
- Rick Nolan selects former rival Jeff Anderson to be district director
- New York Times highlights Nolan, incoming House members
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
26 comments
-
26 comments
-
23 comments
-
21 comments
Comments (5)
In the end, won't go anywhere
Wanting to remove the idea of corporate person-hood would have a huge effect on law and precedent going back to the 1800's, people act like this is a new thing since Citizen's United, and it's not. To say individuals have free speech, but a group of individuals do not seems to be counter to the right of freedom of speech and association, and would have far reaching effects. Would groups like labor unions then not have the constitutional right to protest? Or groups not have the 1st amendment right to lobby their government?
It's one thing to say I don't like this freedom of speech right when it's with a corporation or union, heck, I don't like freedom of speech when it's exercised by the KKK or neo-nazi's as well, but it's another thing to want to amend the constitution to get rid of it.
It seems like Section 1 of this amendment would go too far interpreted as written, it would seem to say that the State of WI could have outlawed labor unions to protest in Madison last year.
it takes away a lot of 1st amendment items
Newspapers seem to loose 1st amendment rights, with this amendment. Unless the author is assuming that a 'by line' is enough to keep news corporations safe.
Texas
It bears repeating: I'll believe a corporation is a person only after Texas executes one. As it is, they're getting the benefits of "personhood" without any of the responsibilities.
They're not?
It would greatly benefit a corporation not to have personhood. A corporation would owe nothing in taxes then, they would have no liability, instead the owners could be sued (which would be almost all of us with 401k's), What responsibilities additional responsibilities would you like corporations to take on?
Example, if BP wasn't considered a person, instead just a business like any standard one, what motivation is there for the board of directors to pay any damages? the company is practically going down in flames, why not run and let the owners get sued? You'd absolve them for most responsibility by removing that special entity as it's created.
Personhood for corporations was put specifically there for responsibility of liability.
Target and Chick-fil-a might disagree
Seems like they had to take some responsibility in the last couple of years.