Franken signs on to constitutional amendment to limit money in politics
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 12:10 pm
- 9 Comments
Sen. Al Franken and 16 other senators are proposing a constitutional amendment that would return the authority to regulate money in political campaigns to state and federal governments, an ability that was partly undermined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision.
The Senate amendment, which has a recent House counterpart, would give Congress and states the authority to regulate money spent in federal and state political campaigns.
Franken formally signed on to support the Senate amendment last week. It was proposed at the start of November by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico.
“Minnesotans’ right to fair and transparent elections have been severely compromised since the Supreme Court held that American corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections ,” Franken told the Minnesota Independent in an email. “This constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money in federal and state campaigns, which is why I strongly support it.”
The move comes as a slew of new Super PACs have raised millions of dollars in anticipation of next year’s presidential and congressional races.
In order to become part of the U.S. Constitution, the amendment needs to pass both house of Congress by a two-thirds majority, and then be ratified by three-fourth of state legislatures within seven years.
Here’s the text of the Senate amendment:
‘Article–
‘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 candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
‘Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents 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
Follow Jon Collins on Twitter9 Comments
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 2:05 pm
Thank God we have a Senator like Al Franken who actually looks out for his constituents. And may the Supreme Court Republicans of the United States (or SCROTUS) quickly retire and/or go away so we can return some judicial sanity to the nation. Enshring the notion that “corporations are people” into law is the worst thing the SC has done in decades.
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 11:47 pm
Well you lost me when you stated “Supreme Court **Republicans** of the United States (or SCROTUS) quickly retire”.
Comment posted November 17, 2011 @ 7:27 am
S.968
This is the ugly bill you cosigned that would sell us out to the entertainment industry!
Don’t be fooled Senator. This draconian doesn’t mean what you think it means and has a nasty contents despite the word “protect IP” as a title. This won’t stop downloads, you can just have an ip address for that.
What it will stop is access to foreign and domestic sites from being accessed on what is supposed to be the most democratic media. Weather or not websites have copyright infringement won’t matter because of the vague wording and capacity to turn the internet in to a witch hunt. Even you and your YOUTUBE channel would be hypocritical on this law if you posted something about yourself that happened on a separate news channel.
So I beg you, please reconsider and vote AGAINST the protect IP act. Just as you said to the lawyers misinterpreting the study of “nuclear family” truly is this “doesn’t mean what you think it means”.
Comment posted November 17, 2011 @ 9:21 am
What we should have is an amendment to the constitution that mandates public funding for all federal elections (Senate, House of Reps. and Presidential) no private contributions at all for those contests. States would be allowed to have their own requirements for state, local, and all primary elections. Under this amendment there would be provisions that would limit PACs and other special interests spending on federal elections. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be a big step to making our politicians more responsive to the people rather then catering to the biggest contributor to their campaigns.
Comment posted November 17, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
I do not believe that this proposed amendment goes far enough to protect our democratic process from the influence of non-citizens or the excessive influence of the very rich.
I see three problems with section 1:
1) It does not cover issues. While issues are not directly on the ballot, they are still an integral part of a political campaign.
2) It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.
3) The politicians setting the regulations, without direction or mandate, are the ones who benefit from the current state of campaign financing. This leaves plenty of room for continued influence peddling.
There are similar problems with section 2:
* It does not cover issues.
* It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.
* It does not cover referenda.
* It does not cover local elections.
* It does not cover other Questions put to the voters, such as millage.
* It does not cover cross-state interference in local politics. The sovereignty of the individual states is being threatened by out-of-state money.
H.J.Res 78 and H.J.Res 88 are more direct.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.78.IH:/
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.88.IH:/
The quest to regain our sovereignty from corporations will be the next American civil war. Blood and treasure have already been spilled.
Comment posted November 19, 2011 @ 9:21 am
Following up on Galley’s comments, I would add that any campaigning be not allowed to start until two months at the most prior to its corresponding election day, and that the media be required to focus on issues, providing much higher-quality information and analyses to the voters who would be encouraged to apply critical thinking skills and consider the broader picture of what could be made better for everyone in society, placing much less emphasis on personalities and opinions including irrelevant so-called moral judgements..
Comment posted November 21, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
Nice way to stack the deck in favor of the incumbents. How about a Constitutional Amendment on term limits (2) and doing away with all of the costly post-term benefits afforded our elected officials? The campaign spending would take care of itself. We don’t need life-long career politicians. We need fresh faces and fresh ideas.
Comment posted November 22, 2011 @ 12:20 pm
He’s trying to do the right thing here people. Don’t be so impractical.
Comment posted November 30, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
What is so impractical about HJRes’ 78 and 88? All they’re saying is that corporations are not people, and that free speech rights in elections do not apply to corporations? Read them. They’re simple, and they solve the problem.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
