Thanks to two disgusting U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the 2014 campaign season will see record levels of spending by corporations, along with their rich owners and top executives, as they attempt to buy politicians that serve their narrow and selfish interests, at the expense of the American public.
But we have already seen the first attempt to halt this corruption. While it was shot down last Thursday, the issue of campaign finance reform won’t be going away and could influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 midterm elections.
Campaign finance in this country was already a corrupt system of legalized bribery when the Supreme Court made matters even worse in 2010 with its 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of their funds to “independently” support or oppose candidates for public office.
In April, the Supreme Court followed Citizens United with McCutcheon v. FEC, another 5-4 decision, which struck down restrictions on the grand total that a person can contribute to all federal candidates for office, a ruling from which only the rich can benefit.
These rulings were based on the lies that a corporation is a “person” and money is “speech.” With corruption now on steroids and a flood of campaign cash unleashed, a backlash followed. Polls have found that 80 percent of Americans oppose these decisions, including 72 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Tea Party supporters.
But it takes a constitutional amendment to completely overturn these travesties, and only Democrats have sponsored such proposals. Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) introduced Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.) 19, the Democracy for All amendment, which states:
“To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
“Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
“Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”
After making it through the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote, S.J.Res. 19 reached the Senate floor last Monday. A motion to begin debate passed 79-18, with all 54 Democrats voting in favor and Republicans consenting by 25-18. On Thursday, a cloture motion to end debate and put the proposed amendment to an up-or-down vote fell short of the needed 60 votes at 54-42, with all the Democrats in favor, including Michigan’s Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, and all the Republicans opposed, in keeping with their standard filibuster approach to any worthwhile measure. It was well short of the 67 votes needed for passage.
This outcome may only prove to be a temporary setback, for campaign finance reform is now an issue in the Nov. 4 election, with the Democrats having established themselves as the party favoring reform. This issue is certain to be used against such opponents as the king of corruption, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and alleged “moderate” Susan Collins (R-ME).
Amending the constitution is a difficult and long-term process, requiring two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
As it now stands, an amendment to overturn Citizens United and McCutcheon is moving at a much faster pace than the 19th Amendment, which guarantees women the vote. The 19th Amendment also began with a bad Supreme Court decision. The National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) claimed that women were guaranteed the vote by the 14th Amendment, which grants universal citizenship, and the 15th Amendment, which grants the vote regardless of race.
But in the 1875 Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, the court unanimously rejected this claim, ruling that voting is not an inherent right of citizenship. The court didn’t reverse this asinine ruling until the 1960s.
In response, NWSA leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted what became the 19th Amendment in 1878. Introduced in Congress, it languished in committee for nine years, before being rejected by the Senate in 1887 by a 34-16 vote. This was followed by 30 years of “the doldrums,” with the amendment not even being considered.
And then in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson spoke in favor of women getting the vote in his State of the Union address. The Senate rejected the amendment in 1918 and February 1919, but it was passed by the House in May of that year, followed by Senate approval the following month. Ratification by state legislatures was swift, being completed in August 1920.
The Democracy for All amendment already has majority support in the Senate just four years after Citizens United, and its initial rejection offers an opportunity to strengthen it by adding language that specifically states that a corporation is not a person and money is not speech. The fight to pass it has only just begun.