House Democrats to Unveil Campaign Finance Amendment

Or... If A Bunch Of Flies Fart All At Once Can Anyone Tell?

Do not fall for this. This proposed amendment will achieve absolutely nothing. Giving States and Congress the power to regulate campaign financing is a joke that will equal nothing changing. I do think however this step is being taken to stem the growing tide calling for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution to cut all private campaign financing leaving only public funding that must be equally doled out among candidates. I know many in this fight will not be pacified so easily.

The amendment would give Congress and the states the power to regulate campaign financing, fundraising and spending, including money spent by independent expenditures. Read more: www.politico.com...

a reply to: Kali74

People that are already wealthy don't NEED to raise funds.

All this does is ensure wealthy people will continue to control our Government.

a reply to: Metallicus

eh; I think that having strict campeign funding limits should even the playing field a bit more..

also: having a rich man fund his own campeign means there is more integrity in said campeign, as he is only marketing himself and not beholden to his financial backers.

The text of the proposed amendment was linked from Tom Udall's website. It can be found here.

1 To advance the fundamental principle
2 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity
3 of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall
4 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money
5 and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,
6 including through setting limits on—
7 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates
8 for nomination for election to, or for election to,
9 Federal office; and
10 ‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,
11 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
12 ‘‘SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle
13 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity
14 of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall
15 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money
16 and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, in-
17 cluding through setting limits on—
18 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates
19 for nomination for election to, or for election to,
20 State office; and
21 ‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,
22 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates

It's a Constitutional Amendment that's supposed to reverse the SCOTUS rulings in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizen's United vs FEC. I'll have to reflect on it a bit before offering an opinion, but it's really irrelevant since it would never pass the House anyway.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I just don't see the anything changing if they are allowed to regulate themselves and I think barring private donations including (since it was brought up) ones own wealth for campaign usage. In my opinion though I'm certainly not alone the only way to dramatically cut the influence of wealth and have the people truly represented is if campaigns are strictly funded by the public.

This to me is nothing but a "see, we're listening to you" band-aid because two States have already called for an Article V and it's only gaining momentum, I think they are scared.

Also, you're right. This won't pass the House.

Looks like yet another attack on the 1st Amendment.

They never learn do they.

This is an obvious feeble attempt to squash the 1st.

a reply to: xuenchen

Money is property, not speech.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like yet another attack on the 1st Amendment.

They never learn do they.

This is an obvious feeble attempt to squash the 1st.

I guess the more money you have the more 1st amendment you get?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Money is property, not speech.

So are pens and paper.

Spending money freely is free speech.

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like yet another attack on the 1st Amendment.

They never learn do they.

This is an obvious feeble attempt to squash the 1st.

I guess the more money you have the more 1st amendment you get?

I don't know.

The louder you shout or the more you write = "more" 1st Amendment?

a reply to: xuenchen

Speaking freely is free speech.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Money is property, not speech.

So are pens and paper.

Spending money freely is free speech.

According to one of the worst supreme courts in history.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Speaking freely is free speech.

Spending money freely is freedom of the press.

Sometimes it takes free spending of money to have;

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Money is property, not speech.

So are pens and paper.

Spending money freely is free speech.

According to one of the worst supreme courts in history.

When was the best supreme court in history?

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like yet another attack on the 1st Amendment.

They never learn do they.

This is an obvious feeble attempt to squash the 1st.

I guess the more money you have the more 1st amendment you get?

The more money you have the more anything you get, just look how our legal system works. OJ figured that out in a hurry. Better to have 4 of the best high priced attorneys than to have a single court appointed lawyer.

I wonder what a scream it would be if we wanted to run the legal system like Obama Care. Do you think all those Lawyers in DC would let it happen? There is a thread in itself, "Citizens seek change to legal system based on function and concept of Obama Care." I would like to watch the comedy act happen on cspan.

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Money is property, not speech.

So are pens and paper.

Spending money freely is free speech.

According to one of the worst supreme courts in history.

Just because you don't agree with their decisions doesn't make them bad. Although, if I was a tool of the left I suppose I would agree with you.

a reply to: Kali74

Ok....

I'm a bit confused here.

SCOTUS has already ruled money is free speech so I am not sure how an amendment allowing what SCOTUS said is illegal is valid.

It would require SCOTUS to either rule a second time on the topic and allowing for regulation or it would require an actual constitutional amendment.

Unless the Dems are taking a page from Obamas play book and are just going to ignore COTUS and the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A Constitutional amendment can overturn decisions of the Supreme Court, they can also overturn interpretations of provisions made by the Supreme Court. The proposed amendment (which falls short of what's necessary IMO) would overturn McCutcheon V Federal Election Commission which is how we ended up with money defined as free speech.

What the House Dems are proposing is an actual Constitutional amendment.

a reply to: Kali74

It won't pass and to be honest, the way its worded, I hope it does not pass. Allowing Congress / States that control sets up the red verse blue pissing contest.

I would support an amendment that is absolute - No donations from corporations / PACS / special interest groups / lobbyists etc. I would also argue that, at least at the State level, state laws should be valid in regulating campaign finance donations. Since its not specifically granted to the Federal government, its reserved to the states.

That argument is based on states passing laws requiring identification for state elections being held on different days than federal elections. Kansas is leading the way on that issue.

Only donations by individuals.

I am also suspicious of the Democrats push for this. That is based on their ability to manipulate situations in order to get the public on board before it blows up in everyone's face.

I would also like to see an amendment requiring all debate on legislation to be open to the public.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Eh; I wouldn't call it Obama's playbook, I would call it Andrew Jackson's playbook..

At the very least I have to congratulate the dem's for doing something, even if it will go nowhere/will die in the house of representatives.