On February 24, U.S. Senator Chris Dodd introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to allow Congress to curtail independent expenditures about candidates for federal office. It would add this Constitutional Amendment:
Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and (2) the amount of exdenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and (2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
How about no limits for anyone just full disclosure.
The problem with full disclosure is that most people will not have the time or desire to read it. Much of the so-called ‘mainstream’ media pretty does not really appear to see much profit in credible journalism in favor of polarized puppets, media whores and the like.
Also the big primary is not so much that Congressman Jane Jone does vote ‘x’ because wealthy jack slade wrote Jane for a zillion dollars. Yes, it does occur but that’s pretty rare. Other forms of corruption are much more common.
I suggest abolish limits (except for voluntary public financing) and require that every candidate have an independent third party who all contributions would go to. This person could dole out the money upon request, but would not be permitted to say how much a specific person gave.
I am pretty tired of conservatives claiming to defend political speech and the free exchange of ideas while they defend Bush v. Gore or the jurisprudence on ballot access.
Why doesn’t Dodd just offer an amendment to repeal the First Amendment?
Tom, I wrote a paper ‘Slashing the Gordian Knot of Campaign Finance…’ back in 1977 and again in 1994. I argue for anonymous campaign financing with unlimited contributions. It might be compatible with what you have in mind. Just Google it. Or see my new revision forthcoming.
It is highly unlikely that this proposed amendment will get the needed 2/3 votes in the affirmative in both houses of Congress, let alone support from three quarters (38) of the states.
How about just having an EVIL hereditary gerrymander oligarchy ??? — or even become a serfdom under the control of the U.K. regime again ???
P.R. and A.V. — to END the rule of MONSTERS like Dodd — who is getting the Hell out of the EVIL gerrymander Congress at the end of his EVIL current term.
*implement* is a standard code word among the New Age control freak MONSTERS.
Everyone get everyone to call both of their Senators and tell them to co-sponsor Senator Dodd’s constitutional amendment proposal!!