Senate Democrats are forging ahead with a plan to bring a joint resolution to the floor that would add a 28th Amendment explicitly giving Congress the authority to regulate contributions and spending in federal elections. It would also give state governments the same authority in statewide contests.
The effort is ostensibly in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s widely lamented Citizens United decision and other rulings that have undone regulatory efforts of the past four decades. But while the role of money in politics is a serious problem, it’s difficult to take this effort seriously.
Think about it: The amendment, crafted by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico and hyped by Senate Majority Leader as “the salvation of American politics,” doesn’t have a snowball’s chance on the 4th of July.
...Were the amendment to pass, it would be the only time other than Prohibition that the Constitution has been amended to limit rights, and it would do so by granting Congress unimaginable authority to limit speech in the name of “political equality for all,” a meaningless if catchy slogan that obfuscates the real impact of this amendment: a deck stacked in favor of incumbents.
...This newspaper has long taken the position that the lack of transparency has been of far greater consequence than limits on donations, which have done little or nothing to prevent influence peddling in electoral politics. We support, for example, Democrats’ efforts to introduce a new version of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill intended to cast light on so-called dark money.
Overturning Citizens United through a constitutional amendment that undermines the First Amendment, however, is not an answer. Democrats would be wise to drop the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment