Dems struggle to show anti-Koch amendment is 'reasonable'

Washington Examiner ^ | June 26, 2014 | Byron York

[don-o]

While much of Washington grapples with international crises, chronic economic troubles, and upcoming midterm elections, Senate Democrats are steadily pushing forward with what they hope will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The proposed amendment would give Congress authority to regulate every dollar raised, and every dollar spent, by every federal campaign and candidate in the country. It would give state legislatures the power to do the same with state races.

Framed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a response to campaign spending by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the proposed amendment, written by Democratic Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet and co-sponsored by 42 other Senate Democrats, would vastly increase the power of Congress to control elections and political speech. Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!

The problem is, Democrats aren't quite sure exactly what the amendment should say. In a move that received virtually no attention, they recently re-wrote the measure — and in the process revealed its fatal flaw.

This is the heart of the amendment as originally written by Udall and Bennet:

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, 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

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

There are literally no limits to congressional power in those words.

[Nuocmam]

How about the following re campaign funding:
Federal
Senate: All funds must come from from within the state in which the candidate is running. Individual contributors must be state residents and business contributors must be incorporated in the state.
House of Representatives: All funds must come from within the district that the candidate will represent. Individual contributors must be residents of the district and business contributors must be incorporated in the district.
State elections based upon the same principles of funding being limited to area which the candidate will actually represent.

[SECURE AMERICA]

It is not going anywhere
Majority of House needs to ratify it
Majority of Senate needs to ratify it
Same Amendment no changes identical
Then it goes to the State Legislators and 38 States must ratify it.
Anyone seeing our dysfunctional Country getting this accomplished?

[dead]

Many on FR have a similar opinion of George Soros.

I agree that he is positioned as the ying to the Koch Brothers yang, but I think the whole Koch brothers brouhaha was intentionally created as a counter balance to the exposure of Soros' political machinations. He was trying to mask his political contributions from public scrutiny through foundations, but when he was exposed they needed a rightwing boogie monster to point at.

And generally, there's more evidence of evil doing by Soros, like intentionally manipulating currency markets to enrich himself at the expense of entire nations or his conviction for insider trading.

But he has no more megalomaniacal magic than the Koch brothers, he's just a world-class a-hole.

[dirtboy]

Not just a majority in the Senate, a 2/3rds majority. This is just red meat for the Dem base.

[dirtboy]

Good point.

[dead]

Here's campaign finance reform - an individual registered voter can give as much money as he/she wants, provided they disclose all donations publically.

No other entity can give money. Not unions, not pacs, not corporations, not trusts, not foundations, etc.

[PeaRidge]

From today’s Patriot Post:

“[A] mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 48, 1788

[Steve_Seattle]

"The law will only apply to the Republican Party."

That's the impression I get. The law might as well read: "The raising of funds in excess of $5 and/or any communication - written, verbal, or electronic - between organizations or individuals, undertaken for the purpose of electing Republican candidates or in support of conservative causes, is a felony punishable by no less than three years in prison and a $100,000 fine."

[Steve_Seattle]

"You have 6 months ONLY prior to the election to start campaigning. Start any sooner and you’re disqualified."

That's the one point I would definitely agree with; in fact, I would shorten it to three or four months. I would also lengthen the term for the US House to four years, and impose term limits of three and two, respectively, for the House and Senate - 12 years max for both.

[Steve_Seattle]

"in-kind equivalents"

From which the news media would be exempt, for clear constitutional reasons. And the media exemption would give Dems a huge advantage because it would be that much more difficult to counteract pro-Dem media bias.

[lavaroise]

In other words the IRS will redistribute like with Obamacare.

[Rusty0604]

This will not apply to unions. I did PAC reports for a labor union in CA. According to the law, the donations are not made by the union itself, but the thousands of members in the union. If a member didn’t want to donate to political activities, they could be “fair share” payers, but they were harassed by others.