There are 48 Democratic senators sponsoring a constitutional amendment to restore congressional control to campaign spending that is expected to come up for a vote later this week. They are not under the illusion that it will become the 28th Amendment soon, if ever. But their willingness to undertake a long and difficult effort shows the importance they attach to restoring fairness to American politics by reducing the influence of big money. Hundreds of millions of dollars in outside spending — most of it from big business and labor interests — continue to flow into political races after being unleashed by the Supreme Court and lower court decisions. Each year a record is set: already, outside spending on this year’s midterm elections ($189 million so far) is more than three times what it was at this point in 2010. The Supreme Court has said that’s fine. In several misguided rulings, it has declared that spending money on politics is a form of free speech, and is thus deserving of constitutional protection. Beginning with the Buckley decision in 1976, the court ended the limitations on independent political spending in the name of speech, and with the Citizens United decision in 2010, it opened the spending floodgates to corporations and unions. These decisions are the law of the land and cannot be overturned by simple legislation. Congress can encourage better behavior with public financing mechanisms, not that Republicans will agree even to that. As long as money is officially categorized as protected speech, there will be no brake on the ability of the rich and special interests to drown out other voices. Barring a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, it would take an amendment to reduce the flow of cash. The one under debate in the Senate declares that Congress and the states have the ability to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” Addressing the Citizens United decision, it says that governments can “distinguish between natural persons and corporations” in setting those regulations, thus allowing restrictions on corporate or union spending that would not necessarily apply to individuals. To protect the free flow of information in the news media, the amendment adds the assurance that it will not abridge the freedom of the press. Republicans, fearful of deflating their cushion of cash, are trying to portray the amendment as an assault on the Bill of Rights. But writing unlimited checks on behalf of politicians was never part of the American birthright. This measure defines protected “speech” as it had been understood in the First Amendment for 185 years until the Buckley decision: actual words uttered or written by natural persons, not money spent, and certainly not from corporate treasuries. The amendment would not be a cure-all. “The press” is an amorphous term in the digital age, and political groups could try to claim free-press status to get around regulation. And amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. It is a last resort to fix a grave civic problem. But the backers of this amendment recognize that the nature of American democracy is at stake. nytimes/2014/09/11/opinion/an-amendment-to-cut-political-cash.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
Posted on: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:26:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015