Three Members of Congress Introduce Constitutional Amendment to Limit Expenditures on Election Campaigns

On December 8, three members of Congress introduced a proposed Constitutional Amendment, which says, “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.” The authors are U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, U.S. Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, and U.S. House member Ted Deutch of Florida.

The proposed amendment also says, “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.” However, the amendment also says the proposal could not limit the freedom of the press.

Because Senator Sanders is an independent, it is disappointing that his proposed amendment says nothing about requiring systems of public financing for elections to treat all candidates equally. The amendment is also disappointing because it makes no attempt to define “press.” Here is the language of the proposed amendment, which is less than three pages in length.


Comments

Three Members of Congress Introduce Constitutional Amendment to Limit Expenditures on Election Campaigns — 6 Comments

  1. EVIL incumbents will do ANY thing to stay in POWER.

    I.E. having an opponent be able to spend $ 0.01 to oppose an incumbent.

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

    ABOLISH the gerrymander Senate — i.e. the seats of MONSTERS like Sanders and Begich from LOW population States.

    History note — in 1774 at the First Continental Congress there was NO good estimate of the colony populations.

    Result – each State delegation had ONE vote.

    Same in May 1775 when the Second Continental Congress met — in the CRISIS after 19 Apr 1775 – Battles of Lexington and Concord.

    The SCC would fight most of the American Revolutionary WAR (to 1 Mar 1781). Victory on 19 Oct 1781 – Yorktown.

    Result – ONE vote for each State in the 1777 Articles of Confederation — and all the chaos it caused.

    Result – the gerrymander U.S.A. Senate – with E.C. partial math.

  2. Shocking! Muzzling American corporate persons. Next thing you know we’ll be prohibiting same-sex corporate persons from merging.

    Richard – do you expect that corporate persons will still be able to take to the streets and protest under placards and banners if this amendment is passed?

  3. Sorry – private corporations are INVISABLE have NO souls — gee just like governments — public corporations.

    Ask any kid about 9 years old.

    Hey kid – do you see any *corporation* or *government* going to and from school ???

    Who write those corporation checks – an invisable robot ???

  4. Const Amdt – due to the SCOTUS morons —

    Any artificial made up fictional invisable private *person* [as noted by any SCOTUS opinion] shall only have such rights, privileges and immunities as are provided by law – notwithstanding any thing in any part of the U.S.A. Constitution and/or any State Constitution.

    Gee — count the number of words.

    i.e. There are too many legal history MORONS on SCOTUS to count with the fingers on 2 hands.

  5. Sec 1 — It appears to allow nonprofits to spend unlimited sums, contrary to Equal Protection. Eg, Planned Parenthood OK, General Motors NO

    Sec 2&3 — “Such corporate and other private entities” seems overbroad and vague.
    Is Boy Scouts of America one of the “private entities,” or Atheists United, or the League of Women Voters?

    Are Ballot Access News, and Internet Voting for All to be considered “press”?

    Terms “any election” and “any ballot measure” seems overbroad and vague. Will Congress dictate who can contribute to a mayoral election in Glendale, CA? Or support a bond issue?

    Sec 4 – “the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending,” seems overbroad and vague.
    Doesn’t seem consistent w/ the Libertarian principles championed by Ballot Access News.

    George Orwell couldn’t have written a more frightening Amendment. Good thing it has less than zero chance of passing!

    William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
    Internetvoting@gmail.com
    Twitter: wjkno1
    http://tinyurl.com/IV4All

    Author of Internet Voting Now!

  6. # 5 New Age EVIL morons LOVE to have vague stuff — for moron party hack robot judges to play games with.

    See the perversion of Const 1-8-1 in 1937.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.