Campaign finance reform amendment

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement
.

History

In response to the

Wolf PAC,[9] and other political organizations, such as Move to Amend[10] and American Promise.[11][12][13]

Harvard law professor and

one person, one vote principle.[20] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[21] On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published the 99 Percent Declaration[22] of demands, goals, and solutions, including a call to amend the U.S. Constitution to reform campaign finance.[23][24][25] Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.[26][27][28][29]

Background

See also: Corporate personhood and Campaign finance reform in the United States

While Citizens United is the Supreme Court case most cited by advocates for a campaign finance reform amendment, the underlying precedent for extending

legal rights and responsibilities
as natural persons, such as the right to enter into contracts and to sue or be sued. However, the framers of the US Constitution had originally reserved constitutional protections for individual citizens and had not intended such protections to be inherent or inalienable for their organizations incorporated under law.

The first time the Supreme Court entertained the idea of corporations having constitutional rights was in 1886's

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, when Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral arguments by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[30][31] While the Chief Justice Waite's statement in Santa Clara County was inserted in the headnote, which was not part of the Court's opinion and not considered precedent, the doctrine was clearly affirmed in subsequent cases in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888) and Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway v. Beckwith (1889).[32][33]

In the 307 Fourteenth Amendment cases heard by the Supreme Court in the years following Santa Clara County, 288 cases involved corporations compared to 19 cases involving

Fifth Amendment. During this period known as the Lochner era, the Court cited the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in halting over 200 regulations intended for corporations. Despite the Court's recognition of corporate personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause would not be applied to women until the case Reed v. Reed (1971).[35][36][37][38]

In the case of Citizens United, the extension of corporate personhood to include free speech rights was premised on the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press Clause, which protects associations of individuals, including individual speakers. The Court ruled that Corporations (as associations of individuals) are entitled to free speech rights because the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Furthermore, the Court extended its precedents set in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which asserted corporate spending to political candidates and parties is the equivalent of free speech, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), which established that non-media business corporations can give unrestricted money to "influence or affect" voter opinions in state political referendums. [39][40]

Proposed amendments

Saving American Democracy Amendment

The Saving American Democracy Amendment is a United States

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which stated that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by for-profit and nonprofit corporations.[42][43][44] This was the first constitutional amendment proposed by Sanders in his two decades in Congress.[45]
The text of the amendment reads as follows:

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.[46]

The amendment was introduced in the Senate on December 8, 2011. It was read twice and referred to the

Subcommittee on the Constitution
. Both Sanders' Saving American Democracy Amendment and Deutch's amendment failed to pass.

Democracy For All Amendment

The Democracy For All Amendment was introduced in multiple sessions of Congress beginning with the

House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.[49]

In the 2015 (114th Congress) version the resolution received 162 co-sponsors (161 Democrats, 1 Republican) in the House, while in the Senate, the resolution received 42 co-sponsors (40 Democrats, 2 Independents). The resolution was sent to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, and Senate Committee on the Judiciary, but failed to pass either.[50][51][52][53][54]

The amendment was reintroduced in 2021 (in the

Joint Resolution 1 (H.J.Res. 1).[55][56]

We the People Amendment

The We The People Amendment is a

corporations, which the nonprofit organization Citizens United challenged on the grounds of purportedly violating the First Amendment's freedom of speech
.

The We the People Amendment would establish that

First Amendment or from holding that the amendment would abridge the freedom of the press
. The text of the amendment reads as follows:

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of that person's money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local governments shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Introduction

In the 113th Congress, the We the People Amendment received 3 co-sponsors from the Democratic Party. In the 114th Congress, it garnered 23 co-sponsors (22 Democrats, 1 Republican). In the 115th Congress, it had 66 co-sponsors (65 Democrats, 1 Republican). In the 116th Congress, it had 75 co-sponsors.[57] In the 117th Congress, it had 94 co-sponsors.[58]

As of July 2019, the joint resolution is in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice under the

House Committee on the Judiciary.[59]

People's Rights Amendment

On November 15, 2011, Representative

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[60]

Supporters

Organizations which advocate for an anti-corporate personhood amendment to the Constitution include

Wolf PAC, Mayday PAC, Free Speech For People and American Promise.[61]

References

  1. ^ Deutch, T. (November 18, 2011) "H.J. Res. 90" bill text Archived December 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, 112th Congress (2011–2012) THOMAS.loc.gov
  2. ^ Ted Deutch for Congress Committee (November 18, 2011) "About the OCCUPIED Amendment" Archived November 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine theoccupiedamendment.org
  3. ^ Khimm, S. (November 18, 2011) "House Democrat: Occupy the Constitution!" Washington Post
  4. ^ Portero, A. (November 22, 2011) "House Democrat Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment to Ban Corporate Money in Politics" International Business Times
  5. ^ Udall, T. (November 1, 2011) "A Constitutional Amendment to Reform Campaign Finance" 112th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Senate)
  6. ^ Carney, E.N. (November 29, 2011) "Advocacy Groups Seek to Curb Corporations" Roll Call
  7. ^ Ratigan, D. (2011) "It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics" GetMoneyOut.com
  8. ^ Auerbach, K. (2011) "Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution To Redress the Increasing Distortion of Elections and Political Speech by Corporations and Other Aggregate Forms" Archived April 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine cavebear.com/amendment
  9. ^ Blumenthal, P. (October 20, 2011) "Cenk Uygur Launches New Effort To Separate Money And Politics" Huffington Post
  10. ^ Dolan, Eric W. (December 6, 2011). "Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood". Rawstory. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
  11. ^ Clements, Jeff (February 26, 2016). "Justices matter but amendments matter more". The Hill. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  12. ^ Public Citizen (January 21, 2011) "One Year Later, Movement Is Growing to Overturn Citizens United" Citizen.org
  13. ^ Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post
  14. ^ "The Movement to Organize the Call for a Convention" CallAConvention.org
  15. ^ Conference on the Constitutional Convention, Harvard University, September 24–25, 2011
  16. ^ Lessig, L. (2011) Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It Archived 2012-04-29 at the Wayback Machine (New York City: Hachette/Twelve) excerpt Archived April 10, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
  17. ^ Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" Discovery / TreeHugger.com
  18. ^ Froomkin, D. (October 5, 2011) "Lawrence Lessig's New Book On Political Corruption Offers Protesters A Possible Manifesto" Huffington Post
  19. ^ Oremus, W. (October 5, 2011) "Academics Help Wall Street Protests Gain Credibility" Archived 2011-12-07 at the Wayback Machine Slate
  20. ^ Hill, A. (October 4, 2011) "Campaign finance, lobbying major roadblocks to effective government" Archived July 13, 2012, at archive.today Marketplace Morning Report (American Public Media)
  21. ^ Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
  22. ^ New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group (October 15, 2011) "The 99 Percent Declaration." Retrieved October 20, 2011.
  23. ^ Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
  24. ^ Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Archived April 2, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Business Insider
  25. ^ Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian
  26. ^ Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) "Lynch Shares Views on 'Occupy' Movement" Needham, Mass. Patch
  27. ^ Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) "Russell Simmons: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want Constitutional Amendment" Mediaite
  28. ^ Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) "What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want – Constitutional amendment on corporations is a starting point" Psychology Today
  29. ^ McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" NewsTimes.com
  30. ^ "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissionl". law.cornell.com. Cornell Law School.
  31. ^ "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Companyl". Findlaw.
  32. ^ "Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania". Findlaw.
  33. ^ "Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway v. Beckwith". Findlaw.
  34. ^ Hartman, Thom (2002). Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  35. ^ "Lochner v. New York". Findlaw. Archived from the original on June 14, 2015.
  36. ^ "Hale v. Henkel". Findlaw.
  37. ^ "Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon". Findlaw.
  38. ^ "Reed v. Reed". Findlaw. Archived from the original on September 9, 2018. Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  39. ^ "Buckley v. Valeo". law.cornell.com. Cornell Law School.
  40. ^ "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti". Findlaw.
  41. ^ 112th Congress, S.J.Res.33
  42. ^ Remsen, Nancy (December 8, 2011). "Sen. Bernie Sanders, I–Vt., offers constitutional amendment on corporate "citizenship"". The Burlington Free Press. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012.
  43. ^ "Saving American Democracy Amendment" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 18, 2018. Retrieved February 24, 2018.
  44. ^ Saving American Democracy Amendment. 8 Dec 2011. Sanders Senate web site
  45. ^ "Saving American Democracy Amendment". Bernie Sanders, United States Senator for Vermont. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
  46. ^ 112th Congress, S.J.Res.33
  47. ^ 112th Congress, H.J.Res.90
  48. ^ "September 8, 2014 - Issue: Vol. 160, No. 127 — Daily Edition". Congress.gov. United States Congress. September 8, 2014. Retrieved January 23, 2021. 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) - 2nd Session ... S.J. Res. 19, the democracy-for-all amendment
  49. ^ Gold, Matea (September 11, 2014). "Proposed constitutional amendment to rein in campaign spending fails in Senate". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 23, 2021. ...Democracy for All Amendment...the measure was blocked in a procedural vote, as GOP senators voted against further consideration of the bill.
  50. ^ "S.J.Res.19 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. September 11, 2014.
  51. ^ "H.J.Res.119 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. September 2, 2014.
  52. ^ "The Democracy For All Amendment". Free Speech for People. January 23, 2015. Retrieved June 13, 2017.
  53. ^ "S.J.Res.5 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. January 21, 2015. Retrieved June 13, 2017.
  54. ^ "H.J.Res.22 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. February 2, 2015. Retrieved June 13, 2017.
  55. ^ "H.J.Res.1 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections". Congress.gov. United States Congress. January 4, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  56. ^ "Public Citizen Supports Bipartisan Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United". Public Citizen. January 21, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021. The Democracy for All Amendment (H.J.Res. 1)
  57. ^ "Cosponsors: H.J.Res.48 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. March 22, 2019.
  58. ^ "Cosponsors: H.J.Res.48 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)".
  59. ^ "H.J.Res. 48 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. March 22, 2019.
  60. ^ 112th Congress, H.J.Res. 88 at Congress.gov
  61. ^ "Hobby Lobby Ruling Fuels Amendment Push". Rollcall. July 2, 2014. Retrieved July 13, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_finance_reform_amendment&oldid=1219169227"