大象传媒

In Tuesday鈥檚 press conference, The flood of big money into our elections has enabled more extreme politics to influence decisionmaking鈥攁nd that leads to impasses like the current government shutdown. The Supreme Court鈥檚 2010 Citizens United decision is one big reason for our money-soaked elections.

Here鈥檚 what the President said today:

I continue to believe that Citizens United contributed to some of the problems we’re having in Washington right now. You have some ideological extremists who have a big bankroll, and they can entirely skew our politics. And there are a whole bunch of members of Congress right now who privately will tell you, “I know our positions are unreasonable but we’re scared that if we don’t go along with the tea party agenda or some particularly extremist agenda that we’ll be challenged from the right.”

But the flood of money in politics is likely to get even worse. As of now, there remains a thin veil between big money and candidates: There are limits on how much a person (or corporation) can contribute directly to a candidate鈥檚 campaign or political party.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard a case that could tear away even that thin veil: McCutcheon v. the Federal Election Commission, a case brought by Shaun McCutcheon, a Republican donor from Alabama, seeking to abolish limits on the amount of money donated to candidates.

Under Citizens United, anyone鈥攊ncluding giant corporations鈥攃an contribute as much as they want to so-called 鈥渋ndependent鈥� organizations, like Karl Rove鈥檚 Crossroads GPS. If McCutcheon prevails, the same unlimited amounts of cash will flow directly to candidates and their political parties. It鈥檚 the last step toward shredding any form of restriction on election contributions.

But here鈥檚 the good news: By a wide margin, Americans don鈥檛 like this legalized form of political corruption, and they are taking action. Since the Citizens United decision, groups like , , and have been at the forefront of campaigns to pass a constitutional amendment that would bring back our ability to regulate money in politics.

Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. That didn鈥檛 stop the suffragettes in their quest to get women the vote. And it needn鈥檛 stop us. Already 16 states and more than 300 towns and cities have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment. Many more legislative bodies have such calls in the works.

As the outrage grows over campaign spending and the gridlock that ensues, the momentum for change also grows. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in McCutcheon, you can bet that in towns, cities, and states across the country we will see more calls for a constitutional amendment. Stay tuned. This fight is far from over.