By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Congresswoman Jayapal, along with over two dozen Democratic colleagues, introduced a constitutional amendment aiming to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This “We the People Amendment” seeks to revoke corporate constitutional rights and curtail the influence of massive political spending, exemplified by Elon Musk’s significant contributions to the Trump campaign. The amendment would mandate transparency in political contributions and expenditures at all governmental levels. Supporters argue this is a necessary systemic solution to counter the escalating power of corporations and the corrupting influence of dark money in politics.
Read the original article here
House Democrats’ recent proposal to amend the Constitution and overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision aims to restore power to the people by curtailing the influence of big money in politics. This move, while lauded by many as a necessary step, has also sparked considerable debate about its timing and potential effectiveness.
The proposed amendment seeks to directly address the concerns raised by Citizens United, a landmark ruling that significantly loosened restrictions on corporate and union spending in elections. Many feel that this ruling has led to a deluge of dark money in politics, distorting the democratic process and silencing the voices of ordinary citizens. The amendment is framed as a way to counter this influence and ensure that elections are decided by the votes of people, not the dollars of wealthy donors.
However, the timing of this proposal has drawn significant criticism. Many argue that this effort should have been undertaken years ago, ideally shortly after the Citizens United decision itself. The suggestion that Democrats waited until they were in the minority and knew the amendment had little chance of passing fuels accusations of performative politics. Some even label the move as “too little, too late,” given the deep entrenchment of money in the current political landscape.
The arguments against the amendment’s timing, while valid, don’t necessarily negate its importance. While a similar proposal years prior may have had a higher chance of success, the ongoing, profound influence of big money in politics makes this amendment arguably more crucial now than ever before. To some, the current political climate reinforces the urgency of the amendment; the more time that passes, the more ingrained the problem becomes.
There is a recognition that the amendment faces an uphill battle. The process of amending the Constitution is arduous, requiring supermajorities in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Given the current political polarization and the deep-seated opposition from many Republicans, the likelihood of this amendment being successfully passed seems remote.
Despite the long odds, the very act of proposing the amendment is viewed by some as a necessary step. It serves as a crucial rallying point, focusing attention on the detrimental impact of Citizens United and articulating a clear demand for reform. The act of repeatedly proposing the amendment, even if it repeatedly fails, can be seen as an important tool in maintaining pressure on lawmakers and keeping this critical issue at the forefront of public discourse.
There’s a widespread understanding that the amendment alone isn’t a panacea for all the ills of American politics. Many believe that genuine reform would require additional steps, including strengthening campaign finance laws, increasing transparency in political spending, and promoting broader participation in the political process. Others suggest a more radical restructuring of the political system, including the elimination of super PACs and the adoption of publicly financed elections.
The sentiment expressed by many supporters of the amendment centers on the belief that the current political system is fundamentally broken, with the influence of money tilting the scales against the interests of ordinary citizens. They contend that the amendment is not just about overturning a court decision; it’s about reclaiming the democratic ideals of “one person, one vote,” ensuring that elections are truly representative of the people’s will.
While some have criticized the proposal as “virtue signaling,” others maintain it is a vital step in a long struggle to address a fundamental problem with the American political system. The argument is that even a small chance of success warrants the effort; the alternative is to remain passive and let the current system perpetuate itself.
Many agree that the proposed amendment is a symbolic action, but that the symbolism is important. It’s a way of communicating the gravity of the issue, reminding politicians and the public that something must change. The hope is that by repeatedly putting this proposal forward, eventually it will gain enough traction to overcome the entrenched political opposition and finally bring about meaningful change. This persistent effort, even in the face of significant challenges, is seen as the best hope for restoring faith in the democratic process and empowering the voices of ordinary citizens in the political sphere.