If approved, the amendment would essentially nullify last month’s controversial, 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations.
“I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the First Amendment, and I believe we must continue to do all we can to protect the free speech rights of the American people. But I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights,” Dodd said in a statement.
Sen. Tom Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico and a co-sponsor of the amendment, said the court ruling upends the notion that political campaigns “should be about the best ideas and not the biggest bank accounts.”
Democrats in Congress have been scrambling for ways to diminish the impact of the court’s ruling in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted earlier this month found that 80 percent of those surveyed oppose the decision.
A constititutional amendment would certainly accomplish that goal. However it isn’t easy: The U.S. Constitution hasn’t been amended since 1992. It requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and the ratification of three-fourths of the states.
“The odds are going to be stacked against it,” said Trinity College Professor Ned Cabot, the former national chairman of the citizens organization Common Cause. But, he added, Dodd’s proposal could be a catalyst for opposition to the ruling.
“It’s a useful way of engaging citizens in the discussion,” Cabot said. He also predicted ithe debate over the amendment could shed light on what he views as the corrosive influence of corporate spending on the American political stystem.