Senator Udall,
While many of us applaud your efforts to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform, your recent proposal for an Amendment to the Constitution is a proverbial slap in the face. One would almost assume you attempted to take the temperature of public sentiment, primarily in regards to the Occupy movement, and, perhaps, were unable to correctly read the thermometer or, in fact, used the wrong tool.
Let's look at your solution to the current problems provide by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizen' United vs. FEC.
It doesn't do anything else. More importantly, it doesn't provide any protection from the corporate or private interest sector influencing our political system.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Amendment passes and is accepted as part of the Constitution.
Let's then continue with assumption. A congressperson proposes a bill that would severely limit the ability of corporate donations to campaign funds. For the sake of this hypothetical situation, let's allow for this being the first such proposed legislation following the passage of the Amendment. Given the desire of career politicians and incumbents to maintain their position, corporations supporting the incumbents threaten to refuse all campaign donations, special favors (such as bringing jobs into an incumbents region... those types of favors), etc. They threaten to put all their power into removing the incumbents from office in the available time before the proposed bill is even signed into law.
We know how this goes. The incumbents and those politicians with aspirations of a career will fall in line, just as they have always done. This is not corruption of a true variety, mind you... it's simply human nature. Humans are generally good, but will often act in their own interests and in the interest of their own preservation. They will vote down the proposed legislation and, perhaps, might even propose bills increasing the limits of contributions and expenditures, allowing the corporations greater power.
With the Amendment, our system of checks and balances would be next to useless. All the Amendment accomplishes is allowing career politicians to regulate their own campaign financial laws, which is like... what's the old adage, letting the fox run the hen house? A President would be unable to prevent a corporate-backed majority in the House and Senate from overturning a veto. The Supreme Court could only shrug their collective shoulders and uphold the new laws as "constitutional" under the new Amendment.
Certainly, I see the potential for good in the Amendment. I would like to believe it would be used for the betterment of the people, to reduce the imbalance in the strength of individual voices. No longer would volume be measured by money. However, I must sadly admit that I do not have that much faith in human nature to ascend beyond the need for self-preservation. We cannot trust a Congress that is financed by any corporate influence, any large, moneyed special interest.
The Amendment, as it is currently written, is less of a solution and more of an impediment to true political equality.
I implore you, please reconsider the nature of your proposal. Take the time to realize that the potential harm far outweighs the potential benefits.
Sincerely,
The Constitutionally Concerned
While many of us applaud your efforts to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform, your recent proposal for an Amendment to the Constitution is a proverbial slap in the face. One would almost assume you attempted to take the temperature of public sentiment, primarily in regards to the Occupy movement, and, perhaps, were unable to correctly read the thermometer or, in fact, used the wrong tool.
Let's look at your solution to the current problems provide by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizen' United vs. FEC.
SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on— ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidatesIf I read that correctly, your proposal would be to allow Congress to have full control over the field of campaign finance legislation and reform. That's exactly what it would be, for the record: Congress, alone, would have the power to create legislation designed to alter current campaign financing laws. Certainly, the President could veto any proposed legislation; however, a strong, single-party controlled Congress could easily counter any veto with the requisite two-thirds majority. The Amendment simply seems, in principle, to be designed to eliminate the Supreme Court's own ability to rule on any campaign financing related cases.
It doesn't do anything else. More importantly, it doesn't provide any protection from the corporate or private interest sector influencing our political system.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Amendment passes and is accepted as part of the Constitution.
Let's then continue with assumption. A congressperson proposes a bill that would severely limit the ability of corporate donations to campaign funds. For the sake of this hypothetical situation, let's allow for this being the first such proposed legislation following the passage of the Amendment. Given the desire of career politicians and incumbents to maintain their position, corporations supporting the incumbents threaten to refuse all campaign donations, special favors (such as bringing jobs into an incumbents region... those types of favors), etc. They threaten to put all their power into removing the incumbents from office in the available time before the proposed bill is even signed into law.
We know how this goes. The incumbents and those politicians with aspirations of a career will fall in line, just as they have always done. This is not corruption of a true variety, mind you... it's simply human nature. Humans are generally good, but will often act in their own interests and in the interest of their own preservation. They will vote down the proposed legislation and, perhaps, might even propose bills increasing the limits of contributions and expenditures, allowing the corporations greater power.
With the Amendment, our system of checks and balances would be next to useless. All the Amendment accomplishes is allowing career politicians to regulate their own campaign financial laws, which is like... what's the old adage, letting the fox run the hen house? A President would be unable to prevent a corporate-backed majority in the House and Senate from overturning a veto. The Supreme Court could only shrug their collective shoulders and uphold the new laws as "constitutional" under the new Amendment.
Certainly, I see the potential for good in the Amendment. I would like to believe it would be used for the betterment of the people, to reduce the imbalance in the strength of individual voices. No longer would volume be measured by money. However, I must sadly admit that I do not have that much faith in human nature to ascend beyond the need for self-preservation. We cannot trust a Congress that is financed by any corporate influence, any large, moneyed special interest.
The Amendment, as it is currently written, is less of a solution and more of an impediment to true political equality.
I implore you, please reconsider the nature of your proposal. Take the time to realize that the potential harm far outweighs the potential benefits.
Sincerely,
The Constitutionally Concerned
No comments:
Post a Comment