Another proposed constitutional amendment

  1. The rights enumerated in this Constitution, shall not be construed to extend to the spending of moneys by persons campaigning for office under the United States or the several states, or spending of moneys by third parties to advocate for or against a candidate or act of government, but in a manner to be prescribed by Congress within one year of the ratification of this article.

  2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So written as a response to this thread, the goal being to undo the undesireable effects of Citizens United and create a framework for real campaign finance reform without gutting the entire premise of the American economy.

Goes too far? Doesn’t go far enough? Let’s hear it.

I’m not afraid of free speech, and have no need to be “protected” from it by this amendment. I’m shocked that anyone would feel they need to be.

The public sector unions would be in real trouble with this, as would their Democratic candidates for office.

I’m all for it. Let’s roll.

It seems this could allow a kind of result like: unions and churches could spend money, but for-profits can’t. Or some other wild combination, which would suit those running for office. How did it go? “When you can legislate buying and selling, legislators are the first thing bought and sold”? (I think I got it from PJ O’Rourke, but I don’t know if he said it first.) There’s a clear moral hazard involved with the people setting up the rules for receiving benefits from third parties are the people that would be receiving the benefits from third parties. So if we’re going to get an amendment going, it would have to reach pretty far at the outset, or I think it will have no power to do what the OP intends.

Face it: the first amendment was written to protect free speech, and first and foremost POLITICAL SPEECH.

“Spending moneys” is a side issue - any political speech, other than just shouting something in the street (and even there you’d benefit from buying a loudspeaker) involves “spending moneys”. Even something as humble as printing pamphlets and handing them out in the street involves “spending moneys”.

That amendment would be the death of the 1st amendment. Might as well repeal it.

By your interpretation, the First Amendment is an embodiment of the Golden Rule: the guy who’s got the gold makes the rules.

This proposed ammendment (and its siste on the other thread) seem to be a very specific remedy to “I don’t want organisations to give money to causes I don’t like”.
For such an ammendement to work it would need to be 10,000 words long an go into minutiae to avoid loopholes or contradictions.

I love what **John Mace **said at the beginning, because it is especially true in the 21st century “I’m not afraid of free speech, and have no need to be “protected” from it by this amendment.”

If you don’t want too much money into politics simply don’t vote for the candidates receiving massive funds from interest parties; even if you like that candidate.

There’s an assumption in there that you need to prove. Do you know what that assumption is?

After thinking about this amendment, though, I’ve changed my mind. I’m not afraid of free speech, but that’s because I’m really smart, and I can distinguish between BS and thoughtful political speech. Most people aren’t smart, though, and I don’t want them exposed to speech that they might not understand or that they might accept uncritically. So, I guess I am in favor of this amendment in order to protect those stupid people from free speech. Or, rather, to protect myself from the consequence of having stupid people exposed to free speech.

We could also solve this by not letting those stupid people vote, so I’d also support an amendment that required an intelligence test in order to register to vote. The smart people, like me, will determine what’s on the test.

John, you either love democracy, or you don’t. You love her, you marry her, even though you know that she’s a little crazy all the time, and all the way crazy some of the time. I’ve been smart all my life, and what I’ve learned is that smart people make more complicated mistakes.

There is something fundamentally vulgar in the imbalance between large, private donors and smaller individuals. Throwing red herrings and straw at the disparity covers the question–I do not need to be “protected” from speech.

I do, however, need a democracy/republic that is more responsive to citizens and entities that are issue-driven (i.e. pro/anti-choice) rather than profit driven. You can play semantics if you like about the difference between issues and profit, but it would be wholly disingenuous to make a false equivalence between an advocacy group and the lobbying department of Coca Cola.

I do need to have grass-roots democratic processes be more effective than a relatively small handful of private individuals. I do not think that it promotes the aims and aspirations of democracy to have a tiny subset of the population drive the agenda.

Whether or not this thread’s proposed amendment is worded correctly sufficient to address the problem, Citizens U. has taken an already malignant situation (money in politics) and driven it to heights of absurdity.

Absurd in its effect or absurd in its constitutional logic? Because it makes perfect constitutional sense to me. The first amendment makes no distinctions with regard to the type of speaker making the expression. As Scalia put it, “Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.”

Here’s the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Scalia is right, whether any of us like it or not. The first amendment limits the government’s power as it relates to restricting free speech, and the government gets no free pass from that amendment if the expression or thought to be restricted originated with a particular person, persons, consortium, group, assemblage, or well, any constitution of people you could come up with. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Seems pretty straightforward, and any amendment designed to “refine” it, I would strenuously oppose. I think our liberties are important, even if that means I don’t always like how others exercise theirs. Whether or not you or I think “profits” is an unworthy motive, IMO that’s not reason enough to dismiss or limit speech that has that as its driver. It’s none of the government’s business either.

This. It would turn the whole idea of free speech on its head. No free political speech (which was what was meant to be protected) but free pornography speech and other such things.

You might as well say that we have a freedom of the press, but that no money can be spent producing the newspaper, or that we have a freedom of religion but you can’t spend gas money driving to church.

Does Congress itself have the power to restrict campaign donations? Could the House simply pass a rule, over its own members, saying (for instance) “No person accepting more than $250,000 in campaign donations may be seated in this House?”

If there’s 2/3 support, to pass an amendment, then surely such a rule could be passed by a simple majority. Could such a rule be constitutional?

You did read the OP didn’t you? It’s a bit nonsensical to point existing text of the Constitution to say why an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional.

If a further amendment is needed to cure an existing ill, so be it. I agree with Stephens in that Citizens and its aftermath threaten to–and now are–undermining the democratic electoral process. What’s good for GM is not necessarily good for the country.

Meh, I wouldn’t think so. Congress can pass rules over its members, but not rules over who can become a member. That is outlined in the Constitution.

If you can get around the 1st amendment by Congressional rules, could they simply say “No African-American members shall be seated” and get around the 5th, 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?

I think he was talking about your analysis of the *Citizens United *ruling, not the OP. Hence the relevance of the existing amendment.

Sounds good to me. Let’s roll.

I did read it, which is exactly why I mentioned my strong opposition to such an amendment. I was asking you for clarification regarding exactly what you considered absurd in that particular ruling.

The first amendment is fine as it it is, and it guards exactly against the sort of overbearing restrictions we’re discussing. “Yes, we support free speech, but not for those guys over there. Since we know best, we get to decide if a given group of people’s right to express themselves is not what’s best for the country.” No, you don’t know what’s best, and this is exactly what our founding fathers were guarding against. Everybody gets to express their views. Everybody. The founding fathers wisely made sure that this is so, and that’s how it should remain.

Yes, I was wondering if he thought an amendment was required at all.

I’m sympathetic with the intended thrust of the proposed amendment, but as worded it’s too broad. It seems like there should be some rights associated with the spending of money on political campaigns. I just don’t think that those rights should include the right to spend without limit.