When we started our second season back in January, all eyes were on the plans of new Republican House majority. With that in mind, our first episode was on an extremely insider issue: transparency provisions in the House rules package. As the year has progressed, however, disillusioned activists across the political spectrum began to seek larger, systemic reforms to a broken political system. In homage to an evolving political climate, we wrap up the season with perhaps our most “outsider” summary to date: the OCCUPIED constitutional amendment by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL19).

Deutch was inspired to act by the grievances at the heart of the Occupy Wall Street sensation – frustration with a political system corrupted by money and designed to advance the interests of large corporations and the super-rich. The amendment is the most far-reaching attempt to undo the corrosive effects of money in politics by getting at the roots. While we recently covered another proposed amendment by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD4) that would simply overturn Citizens United, this amendment also negates corporate personhood and essentially gives Congress and state legislatures the authority to enact whatever campaign finance reform measures they deem necessary.

While this proposal has virtually no chance of even receiving a hearing in the Republican-controlled House, it is a clarifying rhetorical measure as the most logical legislative answer to the demands of the Occupiers, stated or otherwise.

See below the fold for the one-pager and further links.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 30
H. J. Res. 90: Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment
Introduced 11/18/2011
Sponsor: Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL19)
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Cosponsors: 3 (3 Democrats, 0 Republicans). Full list at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HJ00090:@@@P

Status: Referred to Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Almost certain to die without a hearing.
Senate Companion: No direct counterpart.

Purpose: The now-infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision unleashed a torrent of corporate spending in the 2010 election cycle, heavily tilted towards Republicans and much of it anonymous. In response, Democrats have proposed various measures to counteract the antidemocratic effects of unlimited and undisclosed corporate spending.

While leadership chose to advance a more modest response and demand transparency through the DISCLOSE Act, some favored a constitutional amendment to repeal the decision entirely. Rep. Donna Edwards’ proposal, H.J. Res. 78, overturns the decision but does not proscribe the corporate personhood doctrine that undergirds Citizens United. This amendment offers a more aggressive approach, aiming to create the conditions for sweeping campaign finance reform. The name is, naturally, an homage to the burgeoning Occupy movement.

Summary: The OCCUPIED Act (unofficial name) contains four clauses. They are as follows:

1) Overturns Corporate Personhood – states that constitutional protections apply only to human beings and not to corporations or other business entities of any sort. This clause would force the judiciary to revisit a controversial constitutional interpretation that has stood in some form for over a century.

2) Reaffirms Constitutionality of Government Regulations – makes clear that corporations are established by the law and are thus subject to local and federal regulations.

3) Overturns Citizens United – prohibits corporations from spending money to influence any election or ballot measure.

4) Overturns Buckley v. Valeo – reaffirms the right of Congress and the states to regulate all campaign expenditures, including those by individuals and candidates themselves.

Note: As with any constitutional amendment, this proposal requires 2/3 support in both houses of Congress (290 in the House, 67 in the Senate), and ratification by 3/4 of the states (38) in order to be enacted. With Republicans controlling far more than the 13 states necessary to block an amendment, enactment is virtually impossible barring a massive shift in the political climate.

CBO Score: None provided. Would not affect federal or state spending in itself, although it may open the door for future regulations requiring enforcement.

Supporters: most Democrats and allied organizations, good government organizations

• Supporters feel this measure is necessary to prevent corporate-aligned interests from buying elections outright and thus undermining the fabric of democracy. They also believe the idea that protections for corporate political activity grotesquely distort the Founders’ intent as expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Opponents: Republicans and allied organizations

• Opponents of this measure (and therefore supporters of the Citizens United decision) claim corporate spending on elections is protected by the First Amendment, as intended by the Founding Fathers. They see efforts to remove that protection as restricting freedom.

Further links
Full legislative text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.90:
Rep. Deutch press release with summary: http://deutch.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269672
Main Street Insider’s summary of the Donna Edwards amendment: http://www.mainstreetinsider.org/90secondsummaries/?p=520
Heritage Foundation blog post opposing the amendment: http://bit.ly/rrPFQl
Washington Post interview with Rep. Deutch: http://wapo.st/tMGcBe

When the President and Congress failed to reach a budget deal several months ago, they created a “supercommittee” to get the job done. Hanging over that supercommittee’s head was what some had termed the “doomsday scenario,” a series of automatic spending cuts that would be triggered upon failure to produce a deal by November 23rd. Since leaders from both parties on that committee have announced failure, these cuts are now scheduled to go into effect in 2013.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 29
The Budget Control Act: Automatic Spending Cuts
Enacted 8/2/2011
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Status: Due to failure of the Supercommittee to produce a proposal, automatic cuts are slated to be implemented in 2013. Currently unclear whether Congress will act beforehand to prevent or modify these cuts, although both President Obama and leadership of both parties is supporting their implementation.

Purpose: Upon taking control of the House in 2010, Republicans threatened to prevent an increase the national debt ceiling unless deep spending cuts were enacted. As a deadline for default on federal debts approached, Congress and President Obama agreed to a comprehensive deal that included a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion and steps to achieve at least that amount in deficit reduction over 10 years.

In addition to $917 billion of immediately effective spending cuts*, a special “Supercommittee” was created to recommend at least $1.2 trillion in further deficit reduction measures. But just in case the Supercommittee failed to reach agreement on a deal, $1.2 trillion in automatic across-the-board cuts were included as a backup plan. With Supercommittee leaders announcing a failure to meet the panel’s November 23rd deadline, the automatic cuts are now scheduled to go into effect at the start of 2013.

Summary: The across-the-board cuts are drawn equally from defense and nondefense spending. The sequestrations of $984 billion ($109 billion per year) break down in the following manner:

• $55 billion per year (10.0% of total in 2013) from defense discretionary spending limits.
• $39 billion (7.8%) in 2013 from nondefense discretionary spending limits, declining to $33 billion (5.5%) by 2021.
• 2% per year ($10.8 billion) from Medicare, increasing to $17.2 billion by 2021.
• Roughly $5 billion per year from other mandatory programs.
• Exempts Social Security, Medicaid, federal retirement and disability programs, various income assistance programs, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the cuts.

Note: The Budget Control Act specifies that $216 billion is deducted off the top to account for savings in net interest generated by the cuts. However, CBO estimates that figure will come to just $169 billion.

CBO Score: The cuts would result in total 10-year deficit reduction of $1.057 trillion, less than the targeted amount. See the full analysis: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12414/09-12-BudgetControlAct.pdf
* All dollar estimates via the Congressional Budget Office

Given that the automatic cuts were designed to provide incentive for the Supercommittee to reach a deal, their dislike is nearly universal. However, reasons for such disapproval break down into three basic categories:

1) Many members from both parties strongly oppose the across-the-board cuts to defense spending, and suggest they will harm national security. Republican members of Congress are nearly unanimous in this stance.
2) Centrist austerity advocates such as Third Way believe the automatic cuts, while generally better than nothing, are deeply inadequate. They still champion a “grand bargain” that includes both new revenues and entitlement cuts.
3) Most progressives believe the focus on deficits is misguided at best, and dangerously counterproductive at worst. They believes Congress should be focusing on job creation and not cut the budget until the economy improves.

Further links
Full Budget Control Act text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-365
Official CRS summary of the Budget Control Act: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-365&tab=summary
Supercommitee announcement of inability to reach a deal: http://bit.ly/v5DJQf
Third Way on the Supercommittee’s failure: http://www.thirdway.org/publications/454
CBPP breakdown of the cuts: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3557
NYTimes on the fate of the military cuts: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/automatic-military-cuts-may-stand-in-congress.html

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 28
Spotlight on the States: The Voter ID Act
ALEC model legislation – adopted July 17, 2009
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Status: Versions introduced in at least 33 states. As of 11/10/11, 14 states have photo ID requirements in place.

Purpose: The 2008 electorate that launched Barack Obama to the White House was more than just the highest election turnout in more than 60 years. It represented the emergence of a new Democratic coalition, one comprised primarily of racial and ethnic minorities, low-income Americans, liberals, young voters and women. At the time, forecasts of demographic change and shifting views on social issues led to speculation that Republicans were on the verge of becoming a permanent minority party.

Shortly after President Obama’s election, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) began to prioritize efforts to chip away at the influence of this coalition. featuring a cover story entitled “Preventing Election Fraud” in its widely-read newsletter. ALEC and its allies invoked the specter of voter fraud to justify a series of measures designed to erect barriers to voting among Democratic-leaning demographic groups. The Voter ID Act, adopted by ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force in summer 2009, is the most prominent of those measures.

Summary: The Voter ID Act requires voters to present a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Specifically, it:

• Defines “proof of identity” as a federal or state-issued photo ID that has an expiration date but is not yet expired;
• Requires that prospective voters present proof of identity at the polls;
• Allows those without a valid ID to fill out provisional ballots and lays out guidelines for the consideration of such provisional ballots;

◦ Provisional ballots are counted if the voter provides ID to the county by the Monday following the election;
◦ Otherwise, county election commissioners evaluate each provisional ballot “based on the merits”;

• Establishes that ID cards shall be provided free of charge to eligible voters without a valid driver’s license;
• Exempts nursing home and assisted-living facility residents from the requirements.

If enacted in all 50 states, this model legislation would have the effect of making the voting process more cumbersome for the up to 5 million American citizens, particularly minorities and college students, who currently lack proof of citizenship or residency.

Supporters: American Legislative Exchange Council, most Republicans, etc.

• Supporters claim this measure is necessary to counteract rampant voter fraud, primarily carried out by the Democratic machine. However, details such as the exclusion of expired licenses and the persistent lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud suggest that their support is more driven by partisan concerns.

Opponents: Civic engagement organizations, minority rights organizations, most Democrats, etc.

• Opponents view this measure as an assault on the democratic process, a thinly veiled attempt to depress turnout among the Democratic base by restricting voter access among groups that lean heavily Democratic. They believe it may also violate the various constitutional protections for equal voting rights.

Further links
Model legislation text: http://alecexposed.org/w/images/d/d9/7G16-VOTER_ID_ACT_Exposed.pdf
The Nation article on ALEC election-related legislation: http://www.thenation.com/article/161969/rigging-elections
PRWatch on a legal challenge to the Wisconsin version: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/11086/wisconsin-voter-id-law-challenged-league-women-voters
NCSL interactive map and description of state voter ID laws and pending bills: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16602
RedState defense of Rhode Island voter ID bill: http://www.redstate.com/soren_dayton/2011/10/10/rhode-island-and-voter-id/
Brennan Center demographic analysis of affected Wisconsinites: http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_50902.pdf

A couple weeks ago, S. 978, the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, was a relatively mundane bill. Aiming to crack down on illegal streaming and internet piracy, the legislation attracted little interest beyond the creative industry associations and the Internet freedom community. It passed the Senate Judiciary easily in June and appeared headed for the Senate floor.

Then, Justin Bieber spoke. Claiming repeatedly in a radio interview that bill sponsor Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) should be “locked up”, Bieber launched S. 978 firmly into the public spotlight. A key opponent organization had launched FreeBieber.org with the message that the Commercial Felony Streaming Act would have jailed the teen singer for posting his renditions of popular songs on YouTube, and Bieber’s comments attracted attention well beyond the core political community.

While the validity of FreeBieber.org’s specific claim is questionable, it does highlight the potentially troublesome vagueness of this legislation and provides a valuable window into the uglier side of the legislative process. As happens all too often Capitol Hill, S. 978 appears to have been crafted by industry interest groups and shepherded along by allied elected officials with little fanfare. Such scenarios leave the public limited opportunity for meaningful feedback, and the lack of checks and balances could lead to unintended consequences without further clarification. That said, it is highly unlikely that regulators would use the Commercial Felony Streaming Act to target YouTube users en masse.

As always, see below the fold for the one-pager.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 27
S. 978: Commercial Felony Streaming Act
Introduced 5/12/2011
Sponsor: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Cosponsors: 2 (Sens. Coons (D-DE) and Cornyn (R-TX)). Full list at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00978:@@@P

Status: Reported by Senate Judiciary Committee on June 20th with broad bipartisan support, but not scheduled for floor action.

House Companion: None as of November 7th.

Purpose: In the realm of intellectual property and copyright law, the Internet presents a major challenge for regulators. The explosion of online audiovisual distribution methods such as YouTube has made sharing of content, both original and copyright, easier than ever. Concerned about the ability to protect their investments and crack down on free distribution of their content, the recording and film industry associations and guilds have called on Congress to toughen the laws governing unauthorized distribution of their copyrighted content. This legislation is primarily a response to the demands of these constituencies.

Summary: S. 978 makes unauthorized web streaming of copyright content a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail, and 10 years for a repeat offense. It applies if the streamed content:

• Is posted 10 or more times over the course of any 180-day period;
• Is a public performance of one or more copyrighted works (especially songs, books, and movies);
• Is worth over $2,500 to either the distributor of the content or the owner of the copyright, or the cost of licensing that content would be over $5,000.

This bill recently entered the public spotlight when teenage singer Justin Bieber claimed Sen. Klobuchar should be “locked up” for sponsoring S. 978. Mr. Bieber is the subject of a major opposition campaign against the bill, claiming he would have been jailed for posting the now-famous YouTube videos that launched his career.

Ms. Klobuchar’s office has stated that the bill is not designed to apply to such a scenario, but the language is vague enough that regulators might have the legal standing to act against any future Biebers if they chose to do so. However, full enforcement of such stringent regulations under that reading would be both cost-prohibitive and monumentally unpopular, so that particular outcome is highly unlikely.

CBO Score: No significant costs estimated. Full analysis: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12277/s978.pdf

Supporters: Most of the political establishment, music and film industry associations, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

• Supporters view the rising tide of online theft of copyright works as a direct threat to artists’ livelihoods and a disincentive for entertainers to create orignal content. To them, this measure is important in helping halt that trend.

Opponents: Electronic Freedom Foundation, Fight the Future (FreeBieber.org), etc.

• Opponents see this legislation as an extreme solution to a nonexistent problem, designed to protect the profits of entrenched and politically connected industries at the expense of a free Internet. They argue the vague wording of the bill could lead to unintended consequences and stifle artistic innovation in its own right.

Further links
Full bill text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978
Official CRS Summary: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00978:@@@D&summ2=m&
EFFpost about the bill’s broad scope: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/felony-penalties-proposed-illegal-streaming-senate
Free Bieber website opposing the bill: http://freebieber.org/
Joint statement from unions and guilds supporting the bill: http://www.aftra.org/AA43BCDF417B4AF680163DDEC71E5D72.htm

When the Senate failed to proceed to debate on the American Jobs Act, Senator Harry Reid vowed to bring up each piece of the legislation individually. The Rebuild America Jobs Act represents the first such attempt and focuses on one of the more lauded areas of government spending and job creation: infrastructure.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 26
Rebuild America Jobs Act
Will be introduced week of 10/31/11
Sponsor: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Cosponsors: None

Status: Will likely be inserted in place of a dead House-passed bill or other legislation on the Senate calendar. Will be brought to the Senate floor this week, but is exceedingly unlikely to garner the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster on a motion to proceed to debate.

House Companion: No direct counterpart.

Purpose: In early September, Obama announced the American Jobs Act in a major speech to a joint session of Congress. Republicans initially sounded open to possible negotiations, but soon hardened their stance in opposition. While dead on arrival in the House, the American Jobs Act was considered in the Senate, but a motion to proceed to debate was blocked on October 11th. On the heels of that defeat, Majority Leader Reid vowed to bring up each section of the bill as a stand alone measure. The Rebuild America Jobs Act, focused on popular and sorely needed infrastructure investments, is the second such measure to be considered.

Summary: The $60 billion Rebuild America Jobs Act closely mirrors the infrastructure section of the original American Jobs Act, . It contains three major components:

1) Infrastructure Bank. Cost: $10 billion
• Creation of a National Infrastructure Bank, modeled on the Kerry-Hutchison BUILD Act. The measure creates the American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA), an independent government-owned corporation. AIFA could leverage up to $640 billion in combined public and private infrastructure spending over the next decade.

2) Direct Infrastructure Spending. Cost: $50 billion
• This direct government investment using traditional means includes: highways, passenger and freight rail, and port infrastructure projects through the Highway Trust Fund ($27B), transit system repairs ($9B), Amtrak ($2B), high-speed rail ($4B), airport improvements ($2B), NextGen air traffic modernization technology ($1B), and innovative multimodal transportation programs awarded through a competitive grant process ($5B).

3) Millionaire’s Tax to Pay for the Investments. Revenue: ~$60 billion
• Imposes a 0.7% surtax on taxable income over $1 million for both single and joint filers, taking effect in 2013.

Note: Reid’s choice to pay for this legislation with a tax source considered unacceptable by Republicans reflects the reality that virtually nothing proposed by Democrats has a chance of passing through this Congress, even though many Republicans have supported very similar infrastructure proposals in the past. Thus, the appearance of this bill is driven primarily by political considerations, part of an ongoing effort to frame Republicans as nihilistic obstructionists.

CBO Score: None provided. CBO did score the American Jobs Act (both S.1549 and S. 1660): http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2875

Supporters: President Obama, most Democrats, AFL-CIO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, infrastructure advocates, etc.

• Supporters see this as a win-win proposal, one that would help close the $2.2 trillion “infrastructure gap” and simultaneously create tens of thousands of jobs.

Opponents: most Republicans, Tea Party activists

• Some opponents believe only the private sector, not government, can create jobs, and the best way to turn the economy around is to shrink the government. Furthermore, they staunchly oppose the taxes increases on the rich proposed as offsets. Some, however, simply see continued economic troubles as a boon for Republicans in 2012.

Further links
Full bill text (from the American Jobs Act): http://bit.ly/sEOWUs (Secs. 241-260)
Senate Dems fact sheet on the bill: http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/10/21/fact-sheet-rebuild-america-jobs-act/
Main Street Insider’s summary of the full American Jobs Act: http://www.mainstreetinsider.org/90secondsummaries/?p=489
Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-21/senate-democrats-propose-60-billion-in-infrastructure-spending.html
Sen. Kerry info on the BUILD Act: http://kerry.senate.gov/work/issues/issue/?id=f0a4612d-382a-46fb-9d31-73e949167108

This week, we take a look at Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Cain’s recent surge in the polls could be nothing more than the flavor-of-the-week dance that best describes the Republican primary to date. That being said, it is worth noting that his radical approach to the tax system strikes a frustrated chord with many Republican primary voters and helped bring his campaign out of single-digits.

The plan itself is simplistic and gimmicky, yet not well thought out, resulting in a de facto 25.38% national sales tax before deductions and dividends. But see for yourself in this week’s episode of 90 Second Summaries.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 25
Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” Plan
Introduced 9/18/2011

Status: Mostly dependent on the fate of Herman Cain’s presidential campaign. If he is elected, the plan would still need to pass through both houses of Congress.

Purpose: At the outset of his 2012 presidential campaign, businessman, conservative commentator and former 2004 Senate candidate Herman Cain was considered an afterthought, the longest of longshots. Having never held public office of any sort, Cain has demonstrated rather undefined beliefs on a variety of issue areas. Yet as conservatives have failed to consolidate around an alternative to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, Cain is gaining significant momentum in the polls and attracting increased scrutiny in the process. In need of a substantive policy proposal to distinguish his campaign and further boost his momentum among Tea Party supporters, Cain introduced the now-famous 9-9-9 plan.

Summary: The 9-9-9 plan radically restructures the federal tax code in the following way:

1. Eliminates the personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes supporting Social Security and Medicare, capital gains taxes, estate and gift taxes, and taxation of repatriated corporate profits.

2. Replaces the eliminated revenue sources with three simple taxes:

• 9% Business Flat Tax – encompasses gross income minus all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports (but not wages). Its effect is very similar to a VAT (value-added tax) like those used in Europe.
• 9% Individual Flat Tax – encompasses all wage and dividend income minus charitable deductions. As a flat tax, it is actually very similar to the plan’s business tax, except the tax is paid by individuals and not businesses.
• 9% National Sales Tax – a tax similar to that levied by most states, but is included in the retail price of a good or service rather than added on. Also, unlike most states, it does not exclude basic necessities like food, health care or clothing.

Given that these three taxes are in fact very similar in nature, they can functionally be combined into one rate. After accounting for the effect of overlapping tax sources, the plan would result in a de facto 25.38% national sales tax before deducting charitable donations and corporate dividends paid to nonprofit organizations. Cain also calls for the ultimate adoption of a “Fair Tax”, but this plan would effectively achieve that goal.
(See our summary of the Fair Tax plan: http://www.mainstreetinsider.org/90secondsummaries/?p=104)

Note: The Cain campaign’s policy documents include mention of “empowerment zones” to lower the individual and business burden on certain communities, but no details are given.

CBO Score: None provided. The Tax Policy Center did evaluate the plan, and found it would be roughly revenue neutral (assuming current tax policy is extended indefinitely), but dramatically shift the tax burden from the rich to everyone else.

Supporters: most Cain campaign supporters, leading supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, most FairTax supporters

• Supporters believe the 9-9-9 plan will create a more efficient tax system that will improve incentives to work and decrease the economic costs of tax compliance.

Opponents: virtually everyone else

• Opponents arise from across the political spectrum and thus derive their opposition for a variety of reasons. Democrats and progressives generally decry the massive shift of the tax burden to lower- and middle-income Americans, while some conservatives oppose the creation of a new national sales tax.

Further links
Cain campaign official overview: http://www.hermancain.com/999plan
Cain campaign video promoting 9-9-9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IuiEmXoBhI
Tax Policy Center study with distributional effects (includes charts): http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Cain-9-9-9-plan.cfm
TPC analyst Howard Gleckman’s explanation of the study results: http://bit.ly/rnM7V6
Miami Herald article on business opposition: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/14/2453651/business-groups-blast-cains-9.html
Arthur Laffer op-ed in support of the 9-9-9 plan: http://on.wsj.com/r768vd

Last week, we put out an episode of 90 Second Second Summaries on Congresswoman Donna Edward’s proposal, House Joint Resolution 78, Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United. In producing that episode, we got the chance to sit down the Congresswoman to discuss the H. J. Res 78 in further detail.

To that end, she introduced this week’s episode, H. J. Res 78, an amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

90 Second Summaries: Season 2, Episode 24
H. J. Res. 78: Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United
Introduced 9/12/2011
Sponsor: Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD4). Key cosponsor: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI14)
Click here to download this summary (pdf)

Cosponsors: 15 (15 Democrats, 0 Republicans). Full list at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HJ00078:@@@P

Status: Referred to Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Virtually no chance of moving or even receiving a hearing.

Senate Companion: None. Max Baucus (D-MT) announced plans in January to introduce such an amendment, but never did so.

Purpose: In January 2010, the United States Supreme Court struck down the longstanding ban on direct political spending by corporations as unconstitutional. The now-infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision unleashed a torrent of corporate spending in the 2010 election cycle, heavily tilted towards Republicans and much of it anonymous, confirming the worst fears of the decision’s detractors.

In response, Democrats have proposed various measures to counteract the antidemocratic effects of unlimited and undisclosed corporate spending. While leadership chose to advance a more modest response and demand transparency through the DISCLOSE Act, some favored a constitutional amendment to repeal the decision entirely. The latter approach was captured in Rep. Donna Edwards’ proposal, reintroduced in the 112th Congress as H.J. Res. 78.

Summary: H. J. Res. 78, which would become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if enacted, overturns Citizens United in the following manner:

• Clarifies the authority of Congress to regulate and restrict the political activity of corporations of any sort, including but not limited to contributions in support of or in opposition to a candidate for public office;
• States that the measure does not affect freedom of the press, most notably for newspapers to endorse candidates;
• Does NOT challenge the concept of “corporate personhood” that allows corporates various rights and constitutional protections;
• Does NOT challenge Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision that ruled campaign contributions to be a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

Note: As with any constitutional amendment, this proposal requires 2/3 support in both houses of Congress (290 in the House, 67 in the Senate), and ratification by 3/4 of the states (38) in order to be enacted. Seeing that Republicans disproportionately benefit from outside corporate spending and control far more than the 13 states necessary to block an amendment, enactment is virtually impossible barring a major shift in the political climate.

CBO Score: None provided. Would not affect federal or state spending in itself, although it may open the door for future regulations requiring enforcement.

Supporters: Democrats and allied organizations, good government organizations

• While some would like to go further and directly negate the concept of corporate personhood itself, supporters generally feel this measure is necessary to prevent corporate-aligned interests from buying elections outright and thus undermining the fabric of democracy.

Opponents: Republicans and allied organizations

• Opponents of this measure (and therefore supporters of the Citizens United decision) claim corporate spending on elections is rightfully protected by the First Amendment, as intended by the Founding Fathers. They see efforts to remove that protection as restricting freedom.

Further links
Full bill text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj112-78
Official CRS summary: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj112-78&tab=summary
Rep. Edwards press release: http://donnaedwards.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&parentid=23&sectiontree=23,24&itemid=462
The Hill article on the bill: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/182729-house-dems-push-bill-to-overturn-citizens-united-ruling
Reason.com article mocking Citizens United opposition: http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/09/you-are-now-free-to-speak-abou/

This is the second part of our interview with Congressman Charles Rangel. In this segment, he discusses the Tea Party and how they have impacted the legislative process. Rep. Rangel has some choice words for them, and lays much of the blame for the current dysfunction at their feet. What do you think?

Click here to watch part one of this interview.

As the interview covered a range of topics, we are releasing it in two parts. The first covers both his school modernization bill and the larger Progressive Caucus jobs plan. As you will see, Mr. Rangel chose to focus primarily on the latter, stressing that his legislation is but a small piece of a much larger puzzle.