On June 3, 2014, a hearing was held by the Senate Judiciary’s subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights to discuss SJR 19. SJR 19 is a joint resolution, introduced by Senator Tom Udall (New Mexico), proposing a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress and the states to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections.
At that hearing, petitions with more than 2 million signers in support of an amendment were delivered to the subcommittee. When discussing SJR 19, Senator Udall stated that elections should be about the quality of ideas, not the size of bank accounts. Continue reading
Posted in 28th Amendment to Constitution
Tagged Citizens United, first amendment rights, free speech envisioned by founding fathers, if money can buy speech then speech is not free, McCutcheon v. FEC, Mike Badzioch, one person one vote democracy, regulate the raising and spending of money in elections, repeal the First Amendment, restoring First Amendment, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Tom Udall, SJR 19, Texans United to Amend
Stephen Spaulding, of Common Cause and the Hill’s Congress blog, recently addressed the latest threat to the fight to get money out of politics.
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, the Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC . Shaun McCutcheon, the lead plaintiff, is challenging the $123,200 limit on contributions a single donor may make to federal candidates and political party committees during any two-year election cycle… If McCutcheon prevails, he and similarly wealthy donors soon will be able to write campaign checks of up to $3.6 million a pop.
McCutcheon, in a July interview, said that he believes individuals should have “more influence” (What?! Is this a democracy or an oligarchy?). He also stated that there needs to be a “real, real good reason” to limit individuals’ ability to give to campaigns.
In fact, there is a very good reason, and it was identified by the Supreme Court in prior rulings: to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), the Court concluded that large contributions do represent corruptions or at least the appearance of corruption. Earlier, the decisions in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) presented the argument that even the appearance of corruption can be devastating, as citizens begin to lose faith in the democratic process.
All three of these precedents, however, have already been challenged by the current Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010). The February blog post, Citizens United Ruling Part 3, detailed the arguments of each side. Will the Citizens United precedent stand, or will the Court go back to previous arguments to find a good reason to limit campaign contributions? The next few months will tell.
After the Supreme Court overturned several of the major campaign finance reforms that had been put into place by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and its amendments (see Part 1), another attempt was made to reform campaign finance in 2002. This time Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold worked together to amend FECA once again with the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold. The two main issues that were addressed were the contributions of soft money to political parties and the proliferation of political ads that were disguised as issue advocacy ads. Continue reading
Posted in BCRA, Citizens United, FECA
Tagged campaign finance history, campaign finance reform, Davis v. FEC, electioneering communications, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, issue ads, McCain-Feingold, McConnell v. FEC, McCutcheon v. FEC, millionaires amendment, soft money, SpeechNow.org v. FEC