There is. For instance, McCain-Feingold imposes much more stringent restrictions on “coordinated” expenditures than on “independent” ones. It defines “independent expenditure” as “as an expenditure by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, and that is not made in concert or cooperation with or at the request or suggestion of such candidate, the candidate’s authorized political committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.”
The SDA would seem to prohibit both coordinated and independent expenditures, at least for corporations. That could absolutely affect media outlets endorsing candidates, or even their election coverage.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The Constitution doesn’t typically define its terms to the level of detail of the questions you’re asking. For example, nowhere does the Constitution define what “the press” is in the context of the First Amendment, or what “reasonable” means in the context of the Fourth, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why the text of the Constitution, it being the supreme law of the land, is a big deal, and should be carefully written. Look at all the ink that’s been spilled over the Second Amendment, thanks to it’s odd collection of clauses, that seemingly justify radically different interpretations.
The SDA restricts freedom, rather than protect it, and thus should be held to a very strict standard for clarity and potential for abuse.
So by “slightly mischaracterized” you mean entirely fabricated your accusation of dishonesty by condescendingly accusing me of omitting things that were not, in fact, there? Got it.
I’m not sure how they’re not equivalent, to be honest (unless the quibble is that a for-profit corporation can have statutorily-created protections, in which case you’re right and my paraphrase was incomplete - “no *constitutional *protections for for-profit corporations”). But, I certainly understand the argument that corporations (as fictional creations) are not entitled to have any protections in the first place. Frankly, the reason that I would support constitutional protections for corporations is best evidenced by the desire to strip protection from only a specificed subset of corporations.
But also, remember, that (other than the textual definition of “persons” which was adopted in the late 1800s), a primary justification for granting a corporation rights, such as due process rights, is the protection of the shareholders (who do, of course, have rights). If the government can seize corporate property without due process, you can say that that only violates the right of a “non-protected” entity, but that’s not quite true. That’s less compelling to me when we’re talking about speech (as opposed to property rights or something like a 4th amendment protection), but I don’t know of a principled distinction.
Property rights are different. The owners of a corporation clearly own the corporation’s assets, assuming corporations have no independent ownership rights, since somebody has to. But the existence of the corporation is only at the sufferance of the state legislature (via the state’s incorporation statutes.) If the legislature repeals the state’s corporation statute, bingo bango, the corporation no longer exists and the assets are divvied up among the stockholders.
But the whole point (other than as a liability shield) of the corporate form is to allow the corporation to independently own property (that’s what sets it apart from a partnership). I don’t take the current movement as an effort to roll back Dartmouth. I presume that corporations would continue to own property, enter into contracts, be subjected to civil suits and criminal prosecution, and so forth. They just don’t get any of the protections that come to individuals doing those things.
Then you’re saying that this amendment must meet a higher standard than any other constitutional provision I can think of. Name one other provision of the Constitution that is as specifically defined as you seek this amendment to be.
As far as your characterization of the amendment, I think it is an amendment that protects the integrity of the government, like the 22nd.
Amendments 27, 26, 25, 24, and 23, for a start. Of course, none of them deal with a matter as technical as campaign finance, which demands technical language.
If so, it protects it by removing existing rights (in certain circumstances). It’s fine if you think that’s necessary, but call it what it is.
Human Action is correct to note that constitutional measures which limit individual freedoms are strictly construed. I guess the question here is whether this counts as a limitation on individual freedoms.
I think we’re in agreement. I’m just saying that the property rights issue is a sine qua non of corporations, while any other rights are speculative.
I think we do agree. It would be entirely rational, following the passage of this amendment (which would never pass, but still), for states (or the feds?) to establish a scheme of corporate law that statutorily granted certain protections to corporations. It would create, I think, all sorts of conflict of laws problems, but the amendment wouldn’t preempt statutes (or even state constitutional provisions). Or everyone just becomes a parternship since the balance of incentives shifts back.
While those are generally straightfoward matters, so I don’t think that those really qualify as examples of constitutional provisions that provide specific definitions that you seem to seek. In any case, the amendment deals with questions of implementation in Section 4.
But here’s the deal: quibbling over items like what constitutes an “expenditure” would be a perfectly good matter for debate if we were congressmen and about to vote on it. But the real meat of the disagreement here is what role corporations should have in elections, and getting bogged down in questions like “What is a corporation?” or “What is an election?” isn’t terribly informative or interesting.
I think you should also call it what it is, an attempt to address the corrupting influence of money in politics. Again, it’s silly to have a “you got chocolate in my peanut butter/you got peanut butter in my chocolate” argument of “what [the amendment] really is” when it’s clear that it does both.
I should add that another reason why it isn’t worth debating the precise wording of the amendment (as opposed to the principles underlying the amendment) is because wording changes. In fact, here’s the version of the amendment that Senator Sanders actually introduced:
I think I’m right to be cautious of using a Constitutional amendment on something that’s not a straightforward matter. Legislation is a better tool for complex issues, since it’s much easier to change, and overturn in the courts.
Section 4 is much less objectionable, taken alone, than Section 3, and is more in keeping with how previous amendments have been written.
Those are two different debates: “Should campaign financing and election expenditures be reformed, and if so, in what way?”, vs. “Does the Saving Democracy Amendment have merit?” I addressed the SDA because it had been brought up on the thread, not because it’s the only debate that can be had on this subject.
I don’t deny what it’s attempting to do, I object to the way it goes about achieving its goal. And I object on several grounds, the loose language of Section 3 is just one of them.
You surely know that this is an invalid criticism, because surely you know that legislation alone cannot address this issue. It has to be a constitutional amendment (and almost certainly backed with further legislation).
And the whole idea that the Constitution shouldn’t deal with complex topics is just laughable. I supposed we ought to get rid of the 14th Amendment because the term “equal protection” is too vague and the topic of civil rights is too complex.
I wonder why Sanders still has it on his website, then. Perhaps it’s his preferred version, I don’t know. Since you seem disinterested in further discussion of the text, I won’t bother trying to figure it out.
An amendment, but not this amendment. Keep the amendment clear and precise, and allow Congress to pass appropriate legislation to work out the details. Section 3 is the antithesis of this approach, being at turns too definite (by prohibiting all contributions and expenditures) and too vague (as to what an expenditure is). Section 4, again, is more like it.
Perhaps Sanders realized these issues existed, and thus altered his proposal.
To me, the 14th Amendment is perfectly straightforward. It is a shame that the courts neglected to actually enforce the Equal Protection clause until the 20th century; does that not strengthen my position that future amendments should be more clear?
FWIW, I think you’re raising some legitimate concerns about this amendment. I very much like what it’s trying to accomplish–I think the continuation of our democracy depends on our finding a way to take the money out of politics–but I’m not convinced this amendment is the best approach to the problem. I won’t defend the amendment from all charges, just ones that seem like dishonest misreadings of its contents.
You will never be able to take money out of politics. It’s one of those unreachable but nice sounding goals like “ending terror”. You can not change the influence of money without abolishing money. A much better approach is to require transparency when corporations of any kind, including unions and non profits, are involved. Then we can boycott and shame those who use their money to promote stupid and harmful things.
I’m all about the transparency as well, but I also know that that’s easier said than done. There was a recent NPR report about the convoluted web of nonprofits that were used to bypass transparency laws in donations to judge campaigns in Colorado. Turns out that one type of nonprofit can’t make political donations, and donations to it are anonymous; this first kind of nonprofit can donate to a different type of nonprofit that requires named donations and can donate to political campaigns. People were using this loophole to bypass disclosure laws, and it was totally legal.
I suspect the loophole will always be there, and there’ll always be an arms race between campaign finance reform and shadowy plutocrats. That doesn’t mean the reform side should surrender the fight.
Thank you. The major failing of the SDA, beyond the textual and rights issues, is that it doesn’t take money out of politics, instead it criminalizes contributions & expenditures made only by business interests, while permitting those made by labor interests, ecological interests, religious interests, single-issue groups like the AARP and NRA, and any other group one can think of.
The Democracy For The People Amendment (see below) is much less objectionable on that basis, in that it seems to disallow any non-individual contribution or expenditure, and thus is at least fair in its infringements, and opens the door to more promising alternatives like public financing.
I went ahead and looked into this anyway. SJR 11 is called the Democracy Is For People Amendment. Though he still has the Saving Democracy Amendment on his website, Sanders appears to have switched gears to this new proposal, which is unrelated (except in subject) to the Saving Democracy Amendment.