I am interested in your guys' take on this idea:
Propose a constitutional amendment to limit pac and corporate contributions to political campaigns.
the text would be something like this (obviously its a starting point and requires editing and input):
Only persons eligible to vote may contribute to the political campaign of an individual candidate, or make an endorsement on behalf of or in opposition to a particular candidate. The annual contribution to any one candidate from any specific individual is limited to 1% of the US median family income determined by the bureau of labor statistics on the year prior to the donation. Donors may meet the limit by donating directly, or through an association, or through ownership (or partial ownership) of a corporation. associations and corporations may not make donations, except on behalf of the eligible voter after securing their direct consent.
here's the thinking:
- it is loosely modeled after the limitations on donations to tax exempt charitable organizations. non-profits are permitted to discuss causes and advocate for any position; but they are not able to make any endorsement of any particular candidate. i selected this model because i think it is impossible to draw a line between political speech and non-political speech; but it is possible to draw a distinction between campaign speech and not campaign speech. is advertising an environmentally responsbile car a political statment in addition to being a commercial statement? are corporate policies of affirmative action or gay partner benefits political statements? honestly, i don't think its possible to prevent a corporation or associtation to advance their interests or positions. also, if they are speaking in their own voice, it adds to a robust public debate.
but campaign speech is another matter. it is possible to limit the resources given to endorsing a specific candidate, whether through their campaign or on their behalf. the amendment would address whether a politician can accept money from pacs or corporations or associations, and it is meant to prevent those entities from advertising on their behalf. i hope that the limitation would mean an interest would find ways to represent themselves in the public debates of the day. maybe they can create the conventional wisdom to have their cause prevail. but that the politicans can not secure substantial campaign resources from a small number of people. sufficient campaign resources would only come from the broadest support of the people. they could only generate campaign funds by satisfying the people's expectations of them and ideally acting in the people's interest.
- if a corporation wishes to use their resources to advocate for a candidate, they would need consent from their shareholders. afterall, its the shareholder's money that is being used. this would prevent management from making choices. in large corporations, the task of tracking down all the owners for consent would be too onerous to undertake. like, if a mutual fund owns your stock, how many people own that mutual fund and when will they consent to a paid political endorsement. for me this is no small matter. if paying a politician is speech, who is talking? the corporate board on behalf of the shareholders? the management, without the express consent of the owners? the corporation would need to get the consent of the owners in order to use corporate assets in this manner. likewise, with associations, which i mean to target pacs. they would need the consent of membership to officially use association resources to fund a specific candidate.
- in some cases, where a company may be privately owned or there are a small number of owners, that consent could be secured. but in those cases, the money would need to be credited to a specific individual and would be considered against their limit per candidate. in this way there is equality - another value in a democracy - in the relationship of a citizen to the candidate. this would also be the case with pacs and other associations. once they secure the consent of persons, the gift that is channeled through the association must be considered in calculating a person's limitation on spending.
- the "elgible voter" language is a little troubling for me. i reject that the "citizens only" aspect of it would attract racist and anti-immigrant bigots. by avoiding "citizen" and using "eligible voter" i'm trying to include green card holders or others with status in the country (but must confess i don't know if this wording actually does this). at the same time i do believe money from non-US sources should not be allowed. nobody wants saudi money to show up in jeb bush's presidential campaign account. in this language i also mean to assert that one may donate to a candidate representing another jurisdiction. it would permit supporting an environmental candidate in another state, for example.
- while we are all aware of the 1st amendment rights, there are many others that are of equal weight and substance. on is the "right to petition the government". as we are all equal before the law, we should all have an equal opportunity to petition the government with our concerns. when this was written and until the civil war this meant that your representative must meet with you and consider your opinions. the disparity in contribution levels results necessarily in an inequality in the availability of our right to petition. i believe the existence of the right to petition is a firm foundation for this amendment.
i would really value some constructive thoughts on this proposal.
Lonnie Chafin