Hating Citizens United is easy. Overturning it is much more difficult, but that\u2019s not stopping some intrepid legislators from trying.<\/p>\n
The hurdle is high: You may remember, from your middle-school Civics class [I didn\u2019t], that to upend a Supreme Court decision of this magnitude, you have to amend the U.S. Constitution. One route is for states to hold a Constitutional convention. On May 2, 2014, Vermont passed JR27 by a vote of 95-43. The bill places the following language on the November 2014 ballot for voters to ask the U.S. Congress\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026to call a convention for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process\u2026by overturning the Citizens United decision\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ten other states are currently considering similar resolutions this year. I don\u2019t remember if they covered this on Schoolhouse Rock, but it would take 34 states to trigger a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n
Another way to override Citizens United is for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment, which must then be ratified by 38 states. On May 28, 2014, the California State Assembly passed a bill that would put an advisory [meaning non-binding] question on the November 4th, 2014 General Election ballot, asking voters whether Congress should propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution [it would be the 28th Amendment, in case you\u2019re counting] overturning Citizens United.
\nThe California ballot question would ask voters:<\/p>\nShall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission \u2026 and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n