WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate is poised to vote Monday evening on a Constitutional Amendment which would grant Congress and the states the power to regulate or limit the raising and spending of money and in-kind donations with respect to federal and state elections.
A group of 43 Democrats (including Iowa Senator Tom Harkin) proposed an amendment to the Constitution last year (S. J. RES. 19) relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. At issue is enormous contributions from wealthy donors – and what limits should be placed on them – that many say corrupt elected officials once they are in office.
The bill has languished in Judiciary Committee hearings since June of 2013. Languished, this is, until Senator Harry Reid of Nevada filed cloture on a motion to proceed to a vote on the bill before Congress left for a 5-week vacation. That vote takes place this evening.
Republicans, in general, oppose the the amendment on the basis that they claim it impinges on the the first amendment right to free speech. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley opposes the amendment, while Tom Harkin is in favor.
According to the U.S. Constitution, the Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, can “propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress typically proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The states then decide if the amendment passes or fails and the vote must be three-fourths in favor to pass.
[poll random]
Something good coming out of government, now that’s a change. Anyone running for office should not get any money from anybody. They should run on their own merit, not on the pocket books of the wealthy. Maybe there wouldn’t be so much corruption in government.
This is one time I agree with Harkin. If they had reasonable limits on election campaign money it would stop this crap of buying the election and it just might slow down or stop all the elected politicains from taking time off from their elected jobs to do fund raising.
Totally agree. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
@JMO-there, we all agree. However, because it makes good sense and the people are in favor of it the senate will vote it down.