So we have a proposed Constitutional Amendment–the full text can be read here–endorsed by almost every Senate Democrat. It “advances democratic self-government and political equality” by giving Congress the power to set “limits on raising of money by candidates and others”, to “distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities”, and to “prohibit such entities from spending money to influence elections”.
I’ve seen a lot of conservative and libertarian sources bashing this amendment. On the other hand, I didn’t see a single Democrat in the media defending it. And now it appears to be dead, at least until the next time that the Democrats need a silly political stunt.
But honestly, how could anybody defend this proposal? First of all, constitutional amendments are a big deal, and shouldn’t be trotted out just for showmanship. Second, the good amendments, such as the Bill of Rights and 13-15, 19, 21, and 24, are those which establish freedoms for the American people and limit what government can do. Amendments which limit what people can do and expand the role of government have a fairly bad track record. (Prohibition, flag-burning amendment, anti-gay-marriage amendment, … These don’t look too good in retrospect.)
Some of us can remember a time when Democrats were generally in favor of civil liberties, and most particularly in favor of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, the press, and assembly. There seems to have been a total turnaround in just a few years. Now Democrats push ahead with an amendment which implies that James Madison was on the wrong track when he gave us all freedom from Congressional censorship. To have a functioning democracy, we obviously need not only the right to vote, but also to encourage (or discourage) others to vote by any non-violent means. If I’m not allowed to say “Joe Blow is a terrible Congressman and you shouldn’t vote for him”, that’s obviously good for Joe Blow, but it cuts against the entire idea of free and democratic government. If I’m not allowed to spend money spreading that message, that’s obviously a curtailment of my right to free speech and a free press. If I’m not allowed to join with other citizens and pool our money to spread that message, that’s trampling on my rights as well.
Money plays too great a role in politics. Campaigns are bought and paid for. Special interests all but own representatives outright, and legislators are too beholden to their sponsors. Fund-raising is far too much of a politician’s profession. Rich bastards can all but buy entire state delegations. It would be best if we had not gone so far down this road.
In practice, there isn’t any way around it. Money is speech.
I just heard on the radio that a state law (Ohio?) requiring that political ads tell only the truth was struck down by the courts. Lies are an inherent part of freedom of speech.
Much of the problem is our own damn fault, in that we, the voters, are so easily swayed by the lies and distortions of political advertising. Maybe if we had half an ounce of good sense, and just ignored those ads, the affair would no longer be of any importance. As Bertolt Brecht wondered, wouldn’t it be easier if the government simply abolished the people and elected another? At least we, the people, still have that option with regard to the government.
Depending on how it’s adjudicated, couldn’t this clause essentially nullify the entire amendment, especially seeing as “the press” is composed almost entirely of “corporations or other artificial entities created by law” that spend money in a way that influences elections?
Isn’t freedom of the press fundamentally the freedom of any citizen to write and distribute what he wants? It’s not something that pertains only to “The Press” in the sense of the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. - is it?
(I, too, am curious how this part of the proposed amendment avoids nullifying the rest.)
Some of us think the Supreme Court got it wrong when it ruled that spending money is a form of speech. But now that they’ve spoken and show no signs of reversing themselves, a constitutional amendment is the only way to go overturn their decision.
That said, I don’t think there’s any chance that this amendment will be enacted. Amending the Constitution would have to be done through the same political system that’s already been put out of whack by money.
Establishing “freedoms for the American people” sounds like a terrific idea. The problem arises when you establish freedoms for one class of people, such as people who possess virtually unlimited wealth, that have no meaningful applicability to another class, such as the vast majority who aren’t so wealthy.
And doesn’t the characterization “limit what people can do and expand the role of government” describe pretty much any and all laws? Unless you’re advocating for a lawless society isn’t that rather a broad brush with which to criticize anything? If you don’t occasionally limit what people can do, then some people (those who are very wealthy, let’s say, or those running a monopolistic business) may start doing things that are grossly unfair to others just because they can, and it’s to their advantage, and because there’s not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Because of all those “freedoms” we “all” have.
No campaign finance law has ever tried to do any of the things you describe in your strawman. What such laws try to do is impose reasonable limits on spending so that the message isn’t overwhelmingly dominated by the richest and best financed. The fact that it demonstrably is, in fact, so dominated should pretty much end the discussion.
The wording of this proposed Amendment would seem to me to sharply curtail the rights of the poor in relation to the wealthy contributors.
If Soros or the Koch brothers want to, they certainly can outright buy some facet of “The Press” which this article claims shall not be abridged.
I can’t do that without pooling my money with a group of like-minded people. And how do a group of people pool their money in a business enterprise? They buy shares in a corporation. The weak and comparatively poor need the corporate form to speak through to be able to effectively speak out about the political process.
:dubious: Has anything like that ever happened? Is there any scenario in which it is likely to?
The weak and comparatively poor used to have a voice, and to a limited extend still do, by forming associations known as unions, which, I suppose, are corporations of a sort, but not the sort formed by buying shares. But the voices of unions especially in the USA, have largely been muted (and the very possibility of forming or growing unions largely curtailed) by the still-growing political power of the sort of corporations that are formed, or, at least, grown, through share selling, but whose purpose is, pretty much by design, to accumulate wealth and to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few (and only a tiny percentage even of the shareholders are generally, in practice, amongst those few).
If you think corporations, as the word is usually used, the sort in which one can buy shares, in any way provide a way for the weak and powerless to make their voices heard, you are living in looking-glass land. They do not even pretend to do that - I do not think even the most pro-business conservative has ever claimed that they do, or even should - and, in practice, they do the opposite.
Whether it is through a for profit business, a religious association, a labor union, or whatever, people form groups to express their political beliefs and many of those groups use the corporate form. Whether shares are bought on an open market or membership is paid by dues or donates is rather immaterial.
The UAW has a 501(c)(4) corporation “tasked with exploring organizing and electoral options to reverse the devastating effects of Governor Snyder’s attempt to unravel the middle class with so-called ‘right-to-work’ legislation passed earlier this week.”
The UAW’s efforts could be limited by the language of Section Two of this Amendment the Democrats introduced.
So the current legislature and governor of the State of Michigan could prohibit the UAW from spending any money to attempt to influence an election in furthering the UAW membership’s goal to elect a legislature and governor who would repeal the Right to Work law.
I’m not sure why you focus on “buying shares,” except, I guess, to respond to Iggy’s use of the phrase.
But the Foundation for National Progress, a corporation, publishes Mother Jones every month. Blech. But one can hardly deny that they are a corporation, and they are at least nominally advocating for policies to assist the weak and powerless.
Current law simply does not do that. Take an organization like the NRA, for example. They collect $30 per year from millions of members and are able to advocate against gun control. It is powerful that one individual with $30 in his pocket is able to join with like-minded individuals to have his voice heard on a national stage.
Those aren’t the wealthy. They are regular people. The amendment would only serve to protect incumbents. If John Smith who makes $30k per year wants to run against Sen. John McCain, how can he possibly win if you don’t allow him to raise donations and spend money to get his name out?
Unless free speech means only shouting as loud as you can, one needs money for TV commercials, staff, transportation, billboards, web pages, etc.
jtgain is correct, of course - this is an Incumbent Employment Protection Act. Also a “let’s keep Evil Corporations from donating money but keep unions running their mailing lists and phone banks.”
It’s aways funny in a way to see people who talk about the Constitution as a living document expect that the wording of an Amendment will be interpreted textually to do what they expect.
