As you may already know, we’ve been working to make sure Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) stands up for the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency and serious financial reform. There have been rumors he might cave in to the corporate special interests on that — but his in his statement on Citizens United v. FEC, it sounds like he just might be ready to take the gloves off and fight for consumers:
From the Courant‘s Capitol Watch blog (emphasis added):
“What a terrible day for American democracy,” U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd said in a statement. “With this 5-4 decision, a deeply divided Supreme Court has essentially given corporations free rein to drown out the voices of the American people, rejecting the sacred democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote.’ By overturning the century-old cornerstone of our campaign finance laws, they have opened the floodgates of direct corporate spending, allowing our political discourse and the legislative process to be further corrupted by huge corporations. I intend to pursue every legislative option – including a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to put appropriate limits on campaign spending – to restore the trust and voice of the American people.”
Bold words, Senator Dodd. We hope you join our battle to solve this crisis in our democracy.
Meanwhile, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) made some sobering statements about the possible impact of the Supreme Court decision on financial reform: “Think about the biggest firms on Wall Street, at a time when we are trying to hold them accountable, being able to take money and defeat those who call greater for transparency and accountability on Wall Street.”
Van Hollen continues: “This is a scandalous decision. This is a decision that equates, for the purposes of expending monies in elections, says that corporations equal individuals. I think it is an un-American decision and think that when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant, they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today. “