April 20th, 2010
11:50 AM ET
5 years ago

Van Hollen, Castle plan legislative response to Supreme Court ruling

Washington (CNN) - Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Delaware, announced Monday that they will introduce bipartisan legislation in response to a January ruling by the Supreme Court that altered long-standing rules governing how corporations fund political campaigns.

"The Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. FEC overturned two decades of precedents that prohibited corporate and union expenditures in political campaigns," the congressmen wrote in a joint statement. "This decision enables larger financial interests to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, allows foreign corporations to spend money through their domestic subsidiaries, and permits major recipients of taxpayer dollars to funnel these funds into political activities."

"The Court's ruling in this case demonstrates a blatant disregard for its own precedents and ignores the clear intent of Congress to reduce the influence of powerful special interests," they added.

The legislators plan on introducing the legislation on Thursday, a Democratic source close to the negotiations tells CNN.

Van Hollen is the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Castle is making a bid for the Senate seat formerly held by Vice President Joe Biden.


Filed under: Chris Van Hollen • Mike Castle • Supreme Court
soundoff (9 Responses)
  1. Victim of GOP Taliban

    Excellent. The Supreme Court led by the activist Conservatives are out of control with unlimited spending by corporations and illegal animal fighting videos in the name of "free speech". Corporations are not people and illegal cruelty to animals should NOT be exploited for profit.

    April 20, 2010 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  2. People Not Corporations Comprise This Country

    Glad to see this occur.

    The Democrats missed an opportunity to be the SOLE sponsors of this legislation which puts power back in the hand of the PEOPLE where the Constitutution intended it to be.

    Even if someone were to argue that this was not the intent, the AMERICAN PEOPLE would support ammending the Constitution to prevent corporations from being given the unalienable rights that accrue to individual human beings.

    Mike Castle is a moderate Republican that usually can be counted on to do the right thing for the working man ... hell, he should be a Democrat.

    April 20, 2010 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  3. Dan

    Mike Castle will change his mind. The Republicans like to act bipartisan, until it's time to vote.

    April 20, 2010 02:47 pm at 2:47 pm |
  4. D. Bunker

    We need to do two things to reverse that abominable SCOTUS decision, via Constitutional amendment if necessary. First strip corporations of "personhood" and then push for publicly financed elections to get all the lobbyist money out of the picture.

    April 20, 2010 02:55 pm at 2:55 pm |
  5. Ben in Texas

    This is exactly the thing that should get well-meaning Democrats and Republicans together. Any politician who agrees with the Extreme Court ruling in Citizens United richly deserves to be retired by the voters, for the reasons outlined by Van Hollen and Castle.

    April 20, 2010 03:04 pm at 3:04 pm |
  6. Average American

    What do you call justices who overturn two decades of precedents? Judicial Activists

    Glad to see there is a bipartisan effort to change this horrible Supreme Court decision.

    April 20, 2010 03:07 pm at 3:07 pm |
  7. Save 'em in the womb, so a "christian" holy war can send 'em to the tomb

    Oh yeah, that was the ruling that opened all American Congressional seats up to being bought by the highest corporate bidder, even in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries so close to us and share our values.

    April 20, 2010 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  8. Allen in Hartwell GA

    This ruling by the Court against the FEC is a farce. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with someone using a group's money to buy influence. If a company CEO wants to spend his/her own money that's fine, but the company's money isn't his to spend. Same for a union official – her money OK, union money not OK. How the Court managed to get from point A to point C is beyond me. I'll sure be harassing my representative and senators to support this legislation.

    April 20, 2010 03:16 pm at 3:16 pm |
  9. Dyan, Minnesota

    How about a simple bill that says ........ Corporations are not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as people are. A corporation shall not be treated under the law as 'a person'.

    April 20, 2010 03:26 pm at 3:26 pm |