Alaska House bill targets 'Citizens United' decision
by Austin Baird / Associated Press
Feb 14, 2012 | 1658 views | 9 9 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
JUNEAU, Alaska - A bill urging an amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting campaign contributions had a hearing before the House State Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Sponsor Rep. Les Gara, an Anchorage Democrat, says the bill stems from a 2010 Supreme Court decision that paved the way for corporations, unions and wealthy Americans to give unlimited amounts of money in support of political campaigns.

The resolution says that court decision "harms the ability of average citizens to have a voice in their own government."

Ketchikan Republican Rep. Kyle Johansen asked Gara if he supports limiting money spent on donors to issue campaigns, like the groups that fund constant commercials either in support of or against Pebble Mine.

Gara says the bill only targets electoral campaigns.

The bill was held pending another hearing.

Comments
(9)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
sonofchulio
|
February 15, 2012
Even if Gara's bill did include union sponsored PACs in the state bill, I haven't heard the same desire from any Democratic US Senators, and I'm not convinced that a federal law regulating Super PACs would not end up just for corporations. Even if it were to include all parties, exemptions such as we see with Obamacare could and would easily be carved out by Obama for his buds.

It's always the evil corporations targeted when we see the anti-Citizens United decision people protest, either in the Senate or in the street. I haven't seen any Senate press releases or any Occupy protest signs yet that have said "Stop the Union Super PACs".

Unfortunately, every time that Congress tries to fix campaign fundraising they screw it up worse than it was. They end up creating more ways to siphon off money for themselves, more ways for special interest money, and more ways to silence regular people.

Gara's bill will do nothing. It's a way to keep his name in the news and walk the Party line. The only way that campaign finance reform will ever be honest again is to fire the professional politicians and go back to citizen legislators. We did some of that in 2010, and need to do more of it in 2012.

Meanwhile---no gas.
twain
|
February 15, 2012
One man one vote yes, but unlimited amounts of money by ANY group...NO NO NO. Especially when our legislators are being bought like a loaf of bread.

Fairbanks Optimist....I watched that hearing on 360 north and unions were included in the bill and in discussion it appears an amendment will be introduced to include any other group.

The best result would be a change of membership on the supreme court that will overturn this facist rule . One of the big reasons to reelect Obama. None of the republicans will appoint justices that would overturn this rule. Short of that this is a good bill and should be supported, realizing the constitutional amendment route is a long process.
Invictus
|
February 14, 2012
I am opposed to any legislation that serves to limit liberty and undermine the plain language of the USC.

It's still one person, one vote. That is the most powerful political tool.
USG
|
February 14, 2012
DOA
Yota99714
|
February 14, 2012
I am NOT in favor of an amendment to the US Constitution.

SCOTUS needs to overturn their stupid decision, instead.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0121/Supreme-Court-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech

This is 6:45 if you wish to watch or listen:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june10/supremecourt_01-21.html

I am for SuperPACs being made accountable and transparent with their donors like the lesser of special interest groups.
Capt_Boblo
|
February 14, 2012
Do they have that little to do in Juneau? Are they so bored with Alaska's business that they need to try changing the United States Constitution? Who voted for these people, anyway?
Yota99714
|
February 14, 2012
Less than 30% of the eligible voter population, I'd guessimate.
Copper_River_Red
|
February 14, 2012
If our state business is to be governed ultimately by Federal law (which it is) we need to be as assertive as necessary to protect ourselves within that framework.

As it is now, under "Citizens United", billionaires have a lot more sway and voice than the entire population of Alaska in national decisions.

And just whose interests do you suppose those billionaires are intending to represent?

Some are all wound up for Wall Street, one in particular is all wound up for israel and dragging us into another war.

This bill is as important as it gets.
FairbanksOptimist
|
February 14, 2012
I am in 100% in favor of this. Corporatations should not influence elections.

Neither should unions.

Hey...wait a minute....I am sure its just an oversight that unions are not included in this bill....
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.