Senator Bernie Sanders has taken the lead in repealing Citizens United politics of big money. From socialist Senator Bernie Sander’s website:

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a constitutional amendment in the Senate today to overturn a misguided Supreme Court ruling that allowed unrestricted, secret campaign spending by corporations and billionaires. The amendment, which was introduced by Rep. Ted Deutch in the House, would make it clear that the right to vote and the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures belong only to people — not corporations.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission undermined democracy by opening the campaign spending floodgates. “What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to tell billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson, ‘You own and control Wall Street. You own and control coal companies. You own and control oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own and control the United States government,’” Bernie said. “That is the essence of what Citizens United is all about. That is why this disastrous decision must be reversed.”

As a direct result of the controversial ruling, a record $7 billion was spent in the 2012 election. Eleven states, including Vermont, and more than 300 cities and towns have already passed resolutions calling for the ruling to be overturned.

The following is from a ‘fact sheet’ contained on Bernie Sander’s Website:

The Democracy is for People Amendment

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Congressman Ted Deutch (FL-21)

Section I. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons
as citizens of the United States, so shall the ability to make contributions and
expenditures to influence the outcomes of public elections belong only to natural
persons in accordance with this Article.

Explanation: Corporations cannot vote and they do not belong in our elections. This section
overturns decisions like Citizens United that declared limits on corporate election spending
unconstitutional, and also stops courts from using the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
protect corporate election spending by excluding corporations from the right to vote. The
Democracy is for People Amendment reaffirms that the right to vote belongs to the people, and
thus any corporate, nonprofit, or private entity without this right is barred from spending money
in elections. Any spending in elections must originate from actual individuals, not corporate
treasuries, and this activity falls under the legislative purview of Congress and the States.

Section II.

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of
Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process,
limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the
dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include
the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, the imposition of
requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to
influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations
of individuals, and the imposition of content neutral limitations on all such
contributions and expenditures.

Explanation:This section legitimizes campaign finance reforms that go beyond the Court’s
narrow interpretation of laws preventing government corruption. It makes clear that the
American people have the power to limit the influence of big money in politics, protect the
integrity of our elections, and ensure politicians are accountable to the people. Public financing,
disclosure rules, and caps on contributions and expenditures are all legitimate exercises of this
power. This section overturns the Buckley v. Valeo (1976)“money is speech” decision allowing
individuals – including individuals who are candidates – to spend unlimited sums of money
independent of candidates. Building on Section I’s ban corporate election spending, Section II
allows for spending by associations of individuals, such as PACs, as long as the money comes
from individuals who have voluntarily and knowingly donated.

Section III. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.

Explanation:This language simply ensures the amendment does not grow or limit the freedom
of the press.

Section IV. Congress and the States shall have the power to enforce this Article through
appropriate legislation.The Democracy is for People Amendment: FAQ

———————————————————————————————

What is wrong with the Citizens United decision?

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision undermined the very concept of
campaign finance laws by asserting that corporations and wealthy individuals can spend
unlimited money in our elections. This decision reversed precedents established by cases
like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC that required
corporate spending in elections to be limited to political action committees (PACS), funded
by the voluntary donations of actual people. A subsequent case, Speechnow.org v FEC, gave
birth to Super PACs by ruling that outside entities could use these unlimited donations to
also spend without limits. In 2012, during the first presidential election since Citizens
United, outside spending totaled more than what was spent in 2010, 2008, 2004, 2002 and
2000 combined.

Isn’t spending money in elections a form of free speech? Why shouldn’t wealthy people
and corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence our elections?

Limitless spending in our elections threatens our democracy by undermining political
equality and diminishing the accountability of our leaders to voters. Free speech comes at
too high a price when 32 mega-rich individuals can spend over $9 million each and surpass
the $310 million in small donations contributed to the Romney and Obama campaigns. The
concept of political equality, in which every American is equal in their right to vote
regardless oftheir background or wealth, has guided our democracy throughout history as
we’ve expanded the right to vote, outlawed poll taxes, banned direct corporate giving to
candidates, and fought government corruption.

The never-ending money race has also undermined accountability in our elected officials.
Over $6 billion was spent by candidates, parties, and outside groups like Super PACs in
2012. Every cycle, politicians are forced to spend a growing number of hours each day
raising money in order to keep up with election opponents and outside groups funded by
special interests that may disagree with their work in Congress. Our Constitution created a
representative democracy–members of Congress were meant to go to Washington to
represent the constituents of their district or state, not those who threatened to spend money
against them if they did not vote a certain way.

This amendment is different from the language you introduced in the 112th Congress,
and different from what other members of Congress have introduced. Why did you take
this approach?

Our previous constitutional amendment only banned spending by for-profit corporations in
elections, thus failing to capture much of the “dark money” we saw funneled through
nonprofit organizations in 2012. Rather than chase money spent in our elections based on an
organization’s tax code status, we decided to focus on who should be allowed to participate
in our democracy in a way that affirms the rights of the American people. Acknowledging
the consensus among constitutional scholars that the issue of corporate personhood

be addressed in a separate amendment, the Democracy is for People Amendment still
successfully bans corporate entities from spending money in elections by limiting
contributions and expenditures to actual people and associations formed by actual people in
accordance with campaign finance laws.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that the only acceptable reason for the
government to regulate campaign finance is to prevent quid pro quo corruption, and,
astonishingly, unlimited outside spending “does not give rise to the appearance of
corruption.” We strongly disagree with this reasoning. Thus our amendment makes clear
that there are other reasons why Congress and the States may regulate campaign finance,
including protecting the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limiting the
influence of private wealth, and guaranteeing that elected officials are dependent on the
people alone, not special interests.

How will people and various types of entities be impacted by the Democracy is for
People amendment?

If the Democracy is for People Amendment were ratified, all spending that did not originate
from the voluntary donations of actual people would be unconstitutional. For-profit
corporations, nonprofit corporations, unions, trade associations, and any other private entity
without the right to vote would be unable to spend money from their general treasuries. The
amendment makes clear that only natural persons may make contributions and
expenditures to influence the outcome of elections in accordance with the laws set by
Congress and the States.

If your amendment is ratified, what kind of laws should Congress pass to regulate
campaign finance?

The amendment lays out several types of regulations that could be appropriate, including
disclosure laws, monetary limits on contributions and expenditures, and public financing.
Yet this is not an exclusive list, and flexibility is given to states to create campaign finance
systems of their own, tailored to the needs and values of their residents.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031213-CUAmendmentFactSheet1.pdf