You’ve seen them on CNN, MSNBC, and the Colbert Report. Come November you may be hearing about American’s Elect even more. That’s because the non-profit, non-partisan organization is intent on changing presidential politics forever with an internet based nominating process that promises a bipartisan ticket that “answers directly to voters-not the political system.” Americans Elect COO Elliot Ackerman sits down to expand on their ideas and agenda with Point Nine Nine, for that, we thank him.

1. What exactly is Americans Elect (AE) and how did the idea come about?

Americans Elect is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that is inviting every registered voter to participate in a direct nominating convention this spring at AmericansElect.org that will put a third choice on the ballot for the 2012 presidential election. We are opening up the political process to give all voters the opportunity to participate in a more meaningful way than ever before.  We’re not a third party—we’re a second way to nominate a president. The winning ticket of the AE convention will be made up of a presidential and vice presidential candidate who are from different parties, and the ticket will be on the ballot in all 50 states in the 2012 election.

Americans Elect was founded in March 2010 by a group of Americans from across the political spectrum who were concerned about our increasingly dysfunctional political system. The idea of an online nominating convention for president and vice-president was inspired by a prior organization called Unity08, which attempted a similar effort in 2008.

2. We’ve seen you on The Colbert Report and Meet the Press.  Thomas Friedman even called AE “the next ipod.”  Why do you think there is so much buzz surrounding your group?

Because we’re taking what have originally been the functions of the two major parties, and we are leveraging our latest technologies to put those functions into the hands of the American people. We’re reimagining the political process and the role all Americans play in it—using the Internet to open up the politics just as it has opened up the market place. This is getting so much “buzz” because Americans realize that there is no reason why the they should only have two choices when they cast their vote for president, especially when those two choices were made by powerful minorities in each party, not by the American population as a whole.

3. How many state’s ballots have you made it onto thus far and what kind of obstacles do you foresee in the lead up to November?

We are already on the ballot in 14 states: Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Utah, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Vermont and California. Ballot access is the single biggest hurdle that Americans Elect must overcome to make our direct nominating convention successful. Ballot access laws grossly favor the two major parties, so any groups that are not part of the two-party system face huge obstacles to get on the ballot in each state. Americans Elect is doing this so that the American people can nominate a candidate outside the two-party system that they think is the best choice for president, not just a candidate that Republicans or Democrats put on the ballot.

4. Does a nominee have to be a politician?

A nominee does not have to be a politician. Any candidate who is constitutionally qualified and has a background similar to any of the previous presidents can run for the Americans Elect ticket. Common examples of these might be former governors or congressmen/women, presidents of large universities or individuals who have held major military commands. However, if a candidate is constitutionally qualified but doesn’t exhibit this type of leadership experience, they can still qualify for the Americans Elect ticket by showing a certain level of delegate support. For details on this please see our Briefing Book for Candidates and Draft Committees on our official documents page.

5. The last time a third party presidential candidate won an election was 1860.  Why is this year different from past years when third party candidates merely “stole” votes from other establishment candidates?

The candidate that inherits the Americans Elect ticket will have a place on the ballot in all 50 states. That in itself is enough to put that candidate on a level playing field with the two major parties. This candidate will not simply be there to “steal” votes from one party or another. The candidate who wins the Americans Elect ticket will have been chosen by voters of all political backgrounds- this won’t just be a product of a particular party’s support. The more delegates that sign up, the more reflective this choice will be of the American population as a whole, and if our numbers of delegates continue to grow as they have been, this will be a winning ticket, not just a spoiler. By holding the nominating convention online and opening it to independents and members of all parties, it will result in an unprecedented level of voter participation in the nominating process.

6. It is relatively easy to sit at a computer and cast a vote to nominate.  Are you worried about turnout on Election Day?

Americans Elect is primarily focusing on the nominating process for the presidential election. The nonpartisan ticket that comes out of our June nominating convention will inherit the Americans Elect line on the ballot in all 50 states, but Americans will not advocate or campaign for any candidates. It is up to the Americans Elect nominee to campaign and garner support for the general election. But with a ticket chosen by voters from across the political spectrum via direct nomination, we wouldn’t anticipate that the future AE candidate would have trouble transferring their support from the nominating convention to the general election.

7. One of the major areas of contention that people cite with the current status quo is the amount of money in politics and the lack of disclosure.  How do you reconcile your policy not to disclose donors with your attempt at a new political reality?

We have had more than 4,000 individuals donate to the Americans Elect effort. Our seed money came from a group of about 50 individuals, and their contributions were made in the form of loans, to be paid back through delegate contributions to Americanselect.org. The goal is to have no individual contribute more than 10,000 dollars to the effort. Those that have given large sums of money are free to disclose themselves, but that is up to them. Many large donors have chosen not to disclose because the hyper-partisan environment we live in would surely result in political retribution. They also do not want any candidates who have the courage to run for the Americans Elect ticket to feel indebted in any way. The money that these seed donors give to Americans Elect goes toward 50-state ballot access and support of a process that gives all voters a voice.

8. Some concerns have been brought up regarding your Board of Advisors.  What is their role and how are they chosen?

The role of our Board of Advisors varies from media appearances to roles on committees such as our Candidate Certification Committee and our Rules Committee. The Board provides support and advice for the organization. Members were chosen based on their experience in fields such as politics and business and what they can offer in terms of guidance and direction for the organization. However, the role of nominating a candidate in the convention lies solely in the hands of the delegates.

9. Does AE have plans beyond the 2012 elections?

Americans Elect is focused solely on the presidential election for this cycle. However, if the Americans Elect ticket gets 5% of the popular vote in the next election, we will have ballot access in most states in 2014 and 2016. We hope to set an example and show Americans that the political process can and should be changed. By putting a nonpartisan ticket on the presidential ballot, Americans Elect hopes to foster a sense of compromise and pragmatic problem solving that will trickle down to other levels of government, and other elections as well. Some day there might be a Maryland Elects or Colorado Elects, for example.

The tone deaf bodyguard of all things financially elite has been littering the landscape with this kind of absurdity for months. He drops diamonds at the feet of his opponents so let’s start scooping, make a little fine jewelry perhaps.

First the centerpiece in this tiara, “Corporations are people my friend.” Romney shared this gem at an event sponsored by the Des Moines Register during his successful run in the Iowa Caucus. His follow up and explanation suggested either a blunt condescension regarding the intellect of his listeners or a painful lack of mental faculty on his own part, “Everything corporations earn goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” A heckler responded immediately, “It goes in their pockets!”. The GOP front runner then leaned in, a clear gleam in his eye, “Whose pockets? They’re human beings my friend.” Even the most deductively challenged observer can sidestep the grade school logic that because corporations are operated by people (large groups of people in fact) that the entities themselves are somehow individual sentient beings. Romney’s implication as documented on the video is clearly that the trickle up nature of the corporate cash stream away from labor and towards executive compensation is somehow acceptable because the recipients are people. Who exactly, Oh sergeant at Arms do you think you’re talking to?

On to the smaller stones. We’ll wrap them around the above centerpiece. During ABC’s entry into the marathon of Republican Presidential debates (back when consummate mouth breather and Brokeback Mountain fashion devotee Rick Perry was still considered a threat) Romney challenged the Texan to a $10,000 bet regarding the veracity Perry’s claim that Romney had supported health care mandates in his book. I’ll keep this brief and salute the Sergeant’s audacity in attempting to wager $10,000 on national television while running to be the chief representative of a country where that princely sum represents 20% of the median household income for the year.

A nice highlight from a few months earlier occurred when the former Massachusetts Governor told a group of unemployed voters in Florida, “I’m also unemployed… but I have my eye on a certain job.” Cue the uncomfortable courtesy laughter. The reported net worth of this well coifed portrait of empathy is 202 million dollars. Ouch.

For the final setting in our stunning little bobble let’s go with this up and coming son of Oligarchy’s precious, “I like being able to fire people.” This one works because no amount of back-pedalling or contextual adjustment will spare Mitt the resentment such a blindly insensitive and media clumsy dollop of verbal drool is going to engender. The man has made it clear to a nation populated by a public reeling under a crippled economy and living in fear of further deprivation and desperation that he is clearly not their guy.

We ride.

Daley is stepping down one full year ahead of his scheduled departure date.  While the news comes as a surprise, nobody inside of the Beltway was necessarily shocked   by the announcement.  In November Daley was effectively demoted when the White House announced that in a “shuffle” some of Daley’s responsibilities would be taken over by senior advisor to the President Pete Rouse.

The Moderate Daley, a former Commerce Secretary and JP Morgan executive, was brought in last January in hopes of improving relations with business leaders.

Daley’s tenure was rocky and strained by his unfamiliarity with Congress, anonymous complaints from White House staffers about his managerial style, and his difficulty in adapting to the current political climate.  By November Daley had seen his role reduced and after only 361 days on the job, the Daley era was over.

Replacing Daley will be the mild mannered Jack Lew, who is somewhat of an enigma.  A former Citigroup banker who resists assertions that the Wall Street crash was a result of federal de-regulation, but one who has bona fide liberal credentials as well.

Lew got his start in Washington as a staffer for then Speaker of the House and liberal lion Tip O’Neil.  While in college at Carlton College in Minnesota, Lew’s faculty advisor was the late liberal legend Paul Wellstone and worked on healthcare legislation while with the Clinton Administration.

Despite his pedigree, it is safe to say that liberals will be watching him closely.

Let’s examine the implications. At its core the refusal to even allow the appointment of a director to the CFPB to come to a vote represents selective enforcement of the law of the land. It allows an agency already formed and approved by the existing machinations of representative democracy to sit hamstrung based on ideological preference. This juvenile act of sabotage is best described as the organized kicking and screaming of a legislative sore loser.

More heinously it looks the American consumer in the eye and states that the obstructionist stance of the current Republican Congress extends directly to the day to day business of surviving in the shrinking American middle class. As stated in its government website the core functions of the CFPB are as follows:

• Conduct rule-making, supervision, and enforcement for Federal consumer financial protection laws
• Restrict unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices
• Take consumer complaints
• Promote financial education
• Research consumer behavior
• Monitor financial markets for new risks to consumers
• Enforce laws that outlaw discrimination and other unfair treatment in consumer finance

To put it simply, the CPFB was created to further specify and codify the practices that had led to the catastrophic economic events of 2008 and reign them in. It was an action that perfectly illustrates the frontline in the battle between those who recognize the need to create and enforce legislation to regulate a lending industry and banking system that is unsustainably predatory, and those who believe that a reshaping of the vocabulary and a reframing of history that depends on collective amnesia regarding the legislative history of the Bush years will somehow be anything other than deadly to the economic well-being of the country.

While Obama declared, “I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve. Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans.” Republicans have labeled the recess appointment an egregious abuse of power. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said, “The President has arrogantly attempted to circumvent the American people.” GOP Presidential front runner and beneficiary of millions in anonymous campaign contributions via his ostensibly non-affiliated super PAC, Mitt Romney has dubbed the move akin to “the worst kind of Chicago politics.”

Understand American voter that the hair they split is the use of the recess appointment, an often employed political maneuver used in response to the filibuster and other outdated mechanisms of obstruction. The implication is that in appointing a director to an agency already receiving taxpayer funding but blocked from providing the full benefits of its service, the President has somehow gone back room with his politics. They reach for the technicality that it has been decades since an appointment was made during a recess less than three days old. They threaten a legal challenge based on this pretext despite the fact that the last President to employ the tactic was a little known and seldom revered Republican named Teddy Roosevelt.

A recess appointment is never ideal, it is not the product of diplomacy but trench warfare. As such it is the big stick that sits so well with the speak softly end of that thought. Furthermore it is Obama’s 29^th such appointment in reaction to the stonewall tactics of the current congress (George W. Bush had made 171 such appointments by the way). It’s hard not to see this as a disappointing evolution in the capital, but also a necessary show of strength by the White House in a year when the politics of deception and entrenched corporate interests are being heralded as the exact opposite and the exact practices that lead to financial ruin are being repackaged and represented as something new.

Frank Luntz, crafting the message for America's financial elite

In a few short days 2012 shall be upon us. The election year will be official and the real fight for the interests of the financially disenfranchised begins. Believe what you will about the camps, the strikes, the petitions and all of the other truly glorious symbols of widespread discontent in America today. The ballot box is where the pendulum of power might swing back towards the people.

Into the upcoming fray we step, the activists, the journalists, the politicians themselves and of course the mechanics of spin. Taking to the proverbial road this year will be the framers of message and meaning. Among this hell raising tribe dedicated to mangling the truth and obfuscating reality none holds more sway than a 49 year old pollster and Fox News mouth piece named Frank Luntz. He sits at the head of the table when it comes to crafting message for the defenders of the financial elite and he pounds the gavel mighty hard.

Few individuals have lorded such a powerful and toxic influence over the American lexicon, maybe none. Consider this, it was Frank Luntz who gave the world “climate change” instead of “global warming”, “energy exploration” instead of “off shore drilling”, and “death tax” instead of “estate tax”.

It is with this in mind that Point Nine Nine turns today’s focus to this Son of Oligarchy to share with our readers his message directives regarding pushback against the so-called 99% movement and the growing populist outrage that threatens to knock the American economy and our system of representative democracy at least slightly back in line.

At a meeting of Republican Governors in Florida earlier this month Luntz offered the following marching orders to the defenders of the status quo:

1. Don’t say ‘capitalism.’ “I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market. The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of Wall Street we’ve got a problem.”

2. Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’ “If you talk about raising taxes on the rich, the public responds favorably. If you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no.”

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’ “They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, I’m not sure about that. But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have the advantage.”

4. Don’t talk about ‘jobs.’ Talk about ‘careers.’ “Everyone in this room talks about ‘jobs,’” Luntz said. “Watch this.” He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a “job.” Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a “career.” Almost every hand was raised. ”So why are we talking about jobs?”

5. Don’t say ‘government spending.’ Call it ‘waste.’ “It’s not about ‘government spending.’ It’s about ‘waste.’ That’s what makes people angry.”

6. Don’t ever say you’re willing to ‘compromise.’ “If you talk about ‘compromise,’ they’ll say you’re selling out. Your side doesn’t want you to ‘compromise.’ What you use in that to replace it with is ‘cooperation.’ It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you’re selling out those principles.”

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: ‘I get it.’ “First off, here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ . . . ‘I get that you’re angry. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.”

8. Out: ‘Entrepreneur.’ In: ‘Job creator.’ “Use the phrases ‘small business owners’ and ‘job creators’ instead of ‘entrepreneurs’ and ‘innovators.’

9. Don’t ever ask anyone to ‘sacrifice.’ “There isn’t an American today in November of 2011 who doesn’t think they’ve already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to ‘sacrifice,’ they’re going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how ‘we’re all in this together.’ We either succeed together or we fail together.”

10. Always blame Washington. “Tell them, ‘You shouldn’t be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it’s the policies over the past few years that have created this problem.’”

Election time is coming America. If we ignore the shameless manipulation of our understanding and perception of the challenges that face us all and the legislation that can either serve to restore balance or seal our further fall, then our country and our future belong to men like Mr. Frank Luntz.

1.Could you tell us about the upcoming Occupy the Courts rally on January 20^th, 2012?

OCCUPY THE COURTS (OTC) is a national day of action protesting the Supreme Court’s odious 2010 ruling in Citizens’ United v. FEC and demanding the passage, and ratification of, an amendment to the constitution that says clearly, and unequivocally, that rights recognized under the constitution belong to human beings, only; and, that money is not speech.  There are currently 74 OTC actions being planned across the country (see our national action map www.movetoamend.org/occupythecourts for locations).  Most of the actions are traditional political rallies, with speakers, street theater, etc., but local action organizers have the freedom to organize an event that makes sense for their particular city.  Move to Amend is a inclusive grassroots organization so we are encouraging our organizers to make their OTC actions as inclusive as they can from a racial, gender, and sexual orientation, stand point.  And, while we are supportive of anyone who makes the pricipled decision to engage in civil disobedience, we are insistant that any CD be peaceful, non-confrontational, and non-violent.

2.We were recently alarmed to learn that only 22% of voters are aware of Citizens United.  Why do you think this is?

Because the corporate-owned “mainsteam” media has a vested interest in NOT reporting on it.

3. As one of the very first organizations sounding the alarm warning against corporate personhood, have you seen interest grow since Occupy Wall Street started?

Most definitely!  OWS has been able to do, in a matter of months, what Move to Amend, and other pro-democracy advocates have not been able to do in years . . . put the issue of “corporate personhood” on the “front burner” of American politics.

4. Move to Amend has drafted its own 28^th Amendment legislation regarding corporate personhood and corporate campaign spending.  What is the difference between your legislation and legislation introduced this year in congress?

Move to Amend’s proposed 28th Amendment is a “people-written” amendment that is designed to protect the rights of people.  This makes our amendment very different from any of the “politician-written” Constitutional Amendments that have been introduced in congress recently.  Ours is the ONLY proposed amendment that say clearly, and unequivocally, that “Corporations are NOT people” and “Money is NOT speech” with NO exceptions and NO loopholes.

5. I would imagine some are more involved than others. How involved are individual Occupy movements in the planning of this event?

Most of our OTC actions are being organized by local MTA affiliates.  In most of those the MTA affiliates have reached out to the local OCCUPY movements to encourage them to participate.  (For example, here in Denver, Occupy Denver’s Tanner Spendley will be a featured speaker). We also have about dozen cities the local OCCUPIES are taking the lead in organizing the OTC action.

6. Are there any special guest speakers planned?

At the Supreme Court our speakers will be Thom Hartmann, David Cobb (MTA National Spokesman and 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate); Dr. Jill Stein (2012 Green Party Presidential Candidate); Annabelle Park (of the Coffee Party USA); and Medea Benjamin (of Code Pink).  Dr. Cornel West (who was originally scheduled to speak at the Supreme Court, has been rescheduled, at his request, to speak at OTC – Gainesville, FL.

7. At MovetoAmend.com there is an impressive collection of material available for download.  What types of tools are available for those who are planning on attending a rally?

If it is on our website, it is available for people planning and attending OTC actions to download and use!

8. Describe for us MTA’s involvement in the recent LA City Council decision regarding corporate personhood?

Move to Amend L.A. was the driving force behind the L.A. City Council resolution.  The orginal resolution language was based on language proposed by Move to Amend.  Then, on the day of the actual City Council vote, a question came up by a member of the city council, seeking clarification.  To clarify the issue, the City Council simply attached Move to Amend’s proposed 28th Amendment to resolution before voting on it.  So, it was, in fact, Move to Amend’s proposed 28th Amendment that was passed unanimously by the L.A. City Counsel.  For more details about the L.A. City Council vote, I suggest you contact MTALA’s Mary Beth Fielder, who I have cc’d above.

9. What other actions do you have planned for the upcoming election year?

Move to Amend’s goal for 2012 is to have at least 50 cities/towns across the country pass either a voter approved ballot question in support of a constitutional amendment (as the people of Boulder, CO, Missoula MT, and Madison, WI, did in 2011) or, to pass a City Council resolution, as L.A. and Albany, NY, did this month.

The Yarmuth-Jones amendment focuses on a key tenet of Citizens United; campaign spending does not equate to free speech.  Additionally, it grants congress the authority to create a system for public financing of elections.

“Corporate money equals influence, not free speech,” Yarmuth said. “The last thing Congress needs is more corporate candidates who don’t answer to the American people. Until we get big money out of politics, we will never be able to responsibly address the major issues facing American families – and that starts by ensuring our elections and elected officials cannot be bought by the well-off and well-connected.”

“If we want to change Washington and return power to the citizens of this nation, we have to change the way campaigns are financed,” Jones added. “The status quo is dominated by deep-pocketed special interests, and that’s simply unacceptable to the American people.”

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that political spending was free speech and thus protected under the First Amendment.  In turn, corporations were granted the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on electioneering activities.  Furthermore, donors are allowed to remain anonymous.

Yarmuth and Jones join fellow house members Betty Sutton (D-OH) and Ted Deutch (D-FL), along with Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), all of whom earlier this year introduced their own amendments aimed at curtailing the effects of Citizens United.  Recent polls have showed Americans overwhelmingly support such legislation.  To date, none have made it out of committee.

Point Nine Nine is committed to tracking progress of said amendments and will post updates as they become available.

Clarence Thomas, one of five justices who ruled in favor of so-called corporate personhood

“Occupy the Courts’ is a phrase, a concept, a suggestion that has bounced around within the uprising that has come to be called the 99% movement almost since its inception. For some it has been a response to the constant call for specificity and focus, an acknowledgement that much of what has created such hideous income disparity in this country is based on laws that have to change. For others Occupy the Courts has been a notion forwarded to suggest class action suits in reaction to police brutality and violation of First Amendment rights within the Occupy movement.

On November 1^st progressive author and radio host Thom Hartmann suggested via online video that the Occupiers focus on federal courthouses and on the little known right wing Federalist Society of whom 5 of the 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are members. During the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday this year noted academic, activist and philosopher Dr. Cornel West was arrested during protests on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington D.C..

Earlier this month the activist organization Move to Amend cited Dr. West’s example when it announced its intention to organize a national day of protest at federal courthouses throughout the country on January 20^th, 2012. The name of these protests? Occupy the Courts. In the days since this announcement over 100 like-minded organizations have either endorsed, partnered with, or begun their own efforts in support of this planned day of protest.

At Point Nine Nine we have always stressed the notion that the courts, or more specifically the laws governing our elections are where the battle lines are drawn. Essentially the whole ball of wax is the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Committee.

Most of those likely to be reading these words are familiar with the implications of this case. We grasp that at its core the Citizens United ruling is a cornerstone of the monstrosity that is the notion of Corporate Personhood. In truth it is simply the corporate lobby’s most powerful instrument. It is built on a foundation that teeters precariously on a twisted mis-statement of the intentions of the 14th Amendment and a choice by a small state court to act on the notion that the theory of natural and non-natural persons would automatically be carried over from British common law.

What came as a shock to us and perhaps would shock other concerned parties were recent polls that showed more than two thirds of Americans had no idea what Citizens United was at all, let alone the shaky foundations behind the ruling. We shuddered to learn that the court decision which most influences the electoral process and thus the policy making that governs their everyday lives sits in the collective blind spot of most Americans. With that knowledge in hand we know where our own creative energies and the organizational and communication capacities of our organization are best applied. With that understanding of widespread public naiveté we feel that this is what comes next for those determined to right the ship and we ask… what better action is available in the service of our democracy and the education of our fellow citizens than to Occupy the Courts?

Up and down the west coast members of the Occupy movement had set aside Monday, Dec. 12^th as the day to ‘Occupy Wall Street on the Waterfront’. As has been the case throughout the evolution of the Occupy movement the Oakland protests were among the best attended and most radical in character. While the debate will rage for days to follow whether or not the waterfront shutdowns clearly serve the interests of dock workers and truck drivers to a sufficient degree to justify the potential loss of a day’s wages, the dedication, courage and remarkable level of organization exhibited in Oakland continue to draw the attention of the national press and thus further a debate crucial to the future of a nation.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that political spending was free speech and thus protected under the First Amendment.  In turn, corporations were granted the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on electioneering activities.  In essence, Citizens United gave the loudest voice to whoever has the most money.

Senator Sanders adds his amendment to a growing number of amendments introduced by members of Congress this year.  Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), Rep. Jim McGovern (R-MA), and Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) have all introduced amendments seeking to address the Citizens United effect.

Senator Udall’s amendment (SJR 29), which is currently awaiting a vote in the Judiciary Committee, seeks to grant Congress and States the right to regulate campaign finance spending.  The Sander’s amendment includes a similar decree but takes it one step further by banning any sort of election spending by corporations and establishes broad authority for Congress and states to regulate spending in elections.

“The dominance of corporations in Washington has imperiled the economic security of the American people and left our citizens profoundly disenchanted with our democracy,” said Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL).

Rep. Deutch has introduced a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

Point Nine Nine is committed to tracking the progress of the Sanders amendment and SJR 29 and will continue to post updates as they come available.