IIA

112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

S. J. RES. 29

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
NOVEMBER 1, 2011 Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BEGICH, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 9 by the Congress:
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Nov 02, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ29.IS SJ29 

2 1 2 ‘‘ARTICLE — ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate

3 the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents 4 with respect to Federal elections, including through set5 ting limits on— 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. ‘‘SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the

13 raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents 14 with respect to State elections, including through setting 15 limits on— 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement

23 and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.
pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Æ

•SJ 29 IS
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Nov 02, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\SJ29.IS SJ29 

Don't understand the hopelessness (or is it disdain?) reflected in some of the comments. I don't know if this is the best solution to the money in politics problem, but I've studied the matter as objectively as I can and there is really no other problem so at the root of so many other problems. A constitutional amendment regard electioneering speech is not impossible in my view. Congress itself Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified. This is a masturbatory exercise appropriately run by a prick named Dick Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified. This is a masturbatory exercise appropriately run by a prick named Dick And why has not one pundit discussed how impossible it would be to run this through the amendment process? And why has not one pundit discussed how impossible it would be to run this through the amendment process? There is no way in hell that these six clowns are every going to get 2/3 of the House and Senate to go along with this. No way, no how. Moreover, do they honestly think 3/4 of the State Legislatures are going to go along with it as well? Bottom line--Dick Durbin has a better chance praying that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, or Kennedy croak first. There is no way in hell that these six clowns are every going to get 2/3 of the House and Senate to go along with this. No way, no how. Moreover, do they honestly think 3/4 of the State Legislatures are going to go along with it as well? Bottom line--Dick Durbin has a better chance praying that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, or Kennedy croak first. Push ahead with this amendment. As attractive a target as corporate personhood is, it is not the core of the Supreme Court's decision. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." The Court said McCain Feingold was a law abridging the freedom of speech and so overturned it. It's an awful decision, but it has to be attacked on other grounds Push ahead with this amendment. As attractive a target as corporate personhood is, it is not the core of the Supreme Court's decision. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." The Court said McCain Feingold was a law abridging the freedom of speech and so overturned it. It's an awful decision, but it has to be attacked on other grounds if corporations are people, then fetuses will soon be corporations. One thing for sure, zygotes will be required to have social security numbers upon conception if the right isn't careful what they ask for. If miscarried, the fetus would be due a death benefit; IF the idiots don't charge the mother with murder for miscarrying. Sound alarmist? not at all. the right doesn't think ahead. if corporations are people, then fetuses will soon be corporations. One thing for sure, zygotes will be required to have social security numbers upon conception if the right isn't careful what they ask for. If miscarried, the fetus would be due a death benefit; IF the idiots don't charge the mother with murder for miscarrying. Sound alarmist? not at all. the right doesn't think ahead. Corporate personhood is an absurdity, a twisting of the 14th Amendment - which was intended to assist former slaves. Congress currently has a 9% approval rating. Who would trust them to fairly regulate campaign finance? This amendment is swiss cheese - full of holes. Corporate personhood is an absurdity, a twisting of the 14th Amendment - which was intended to assist former slaves. Congress currently has a 9% approval rating. Who would trust them to fairly regulate campaign finance? This amendment is swiss cheese - full of holes. THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE "CORPORATE PERSON HOOD" AND "MONEY AS SPEECH". IT WILL DO NO GOOD. BECAUSE THE POWERFUL CAN STILL CIRCUMVENT THE SYSTEM. REALLY DON'T OUR CONGRESS KNOW THAT SEVERAL STATES HAVE BEEN BOUGHT BY IT WEALTHIEST CITIZENS THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE "CORPORATE PERSON HOOD" AND "MONEY AS SPEECH". IT WILL DO NO GOOD. BECAUSE THE POWERFUL CAN STILL CIRCUMVENT THE SYSTEM. REALLY DON'T OUR CONGRESS KNOW THAT SEVERAL STATES HAVE BEEN BOUGHT BY IT WEALTHIEST CITIZENS And, of course, explicitly define personhood. And, of course, explicitly define personhood. With all due respect to Sen. Udall, this amendment does nothing to get money out of the political system. It puts the kids in charge of creating the rules for the candy store. What needs to be done--and what some have mentioned here--is to redefine what lobbying is, and make it illegal for lobbyists, or those who hire them, to contribute to a political campaign of any sort. With all due respect to Sen. Udall, this amendment does nothing to get money out of the political system. It puts the kids in charge of creating the rules for the candy store. What needs to be done--and what some have mentioned here--is to redefine what lobbying is, and make it illegal for lobbyists, or those who hire them, to contribute to a political campaign of any sort. ...and not on the amount of contributions the sponsoring congressmen received from the affected industry. ...and not on the amount of contributions the sponsoring congressmen received from the affected industry. Absolutely Jim. Abolishing corporate personhood would not only remove corporations from our political process but restore the dominion of We the People over non human entities. We could then legislate regulations that could not be litigated by corporate money, but the entire lobbying cabal would be restored to its original intent of informing Congress of the merits of the pending legislation. Absolutely Jim. Abolishing corporate personhood would not only remove corporations from our political process but restore the dominion of We the People over non human entities. We could then legislate regulations that could not be litigated by corporate money, but the entire lobbying cabal would be restored to its original intent of informing Congress of the merits of the pending legislation. This will not do! We need to clear;y establish in the US Constitution that corporations nor any other artificially created entity do not have the rights of individual natural persons, money is not speech and no one should be able to donate to any election or campaign for any candidate for whom the donor is not eligible to vote. This will not do! We need to clear;y establish in the US Constitution that corporations nor any other artificially created entity do not have the rights of individual natural persons, money is not speech and no one should be able to donate to any election or campaign for any candidate for whom the donor is not eligible to vote. Uh, "tilt the field in favor of incuments." Sorry. Uh, "tilt the field in favor of incuments." Sorry. The draft doesn't limit "issue" advertising (anything that doesn't mention a candidate by name) and I suspect it would be widely circumvented in that way. It also could also tilt the field in incumbents. The thing I like about it over corporate personhood amendments is that it could better limit the influence of wealth even if held by an individual, rather than just corporate spending. The draft doesn't limit "issue" advertising (anything that doesn't mention a candidate by name) and I suspect it would be widely circumvented in that way. It also could also tilt the field in incumbents. The thing I like about it over corporate personhood amendments is that it could better limit the influence of wealth even if held by an individual, rather than just corporate spending. This is great news! However, I would change the resolution to instead require ratification by conventions in 3/4 of the states, and not in the legislatures. This is great news! However, I would change the resolution to instead require ratification by conventions in 3/4 of the states, and not in the legislatures. This amendments says that the congress and states can regulate the amount of money given to candidates and amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to candidates. It says nothing about disclosure of that money or corporate personhood. If we're going to amend the constitution, let's do it right! This amendments says that the congress and states can regulate the amount of money given to candidates and amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to candidates. It says nothing about disclosure of that money or corporate personhood. If we're going to amend the constitution, let's do it right! Doesn't Congress already have the power to limit the amount of contributions to federal candidates? Sections 1(1) and 2(1) seem unnecessary, but I'm curious to hear the justification. Doesn't Congress already have the power to limit the amount of contributions to federal candidates? Sections 1(1) and 2(1) seem unnecessary, but I'm curious to hear the justification. continued...citizens. Political campaign and political party contributions shall not exceed an amount reasonably affordable by the average American. The rights of all groups, associations and organizations to other political speech may be regulated by Congress but only as to volume and not content and only to protect the right of the individual voter’s voice to be heard. continued...citizens. Political campaign and political party contributions shall not exceed an amount reasonably affordable by the average American. The rights of all groups, associations and organizations to other political speech may be regulated by Congress but only as to volume and not content and only to protect the right of the individual voter’s voice to be heard. Please consider adding the concepts in the RDA. "The right of the individual qualified citizen voter to participate in and directly elect all candidates by popular vote in all pertinent local, state, and federal elections shall not be questioned and the right to vote is limited to individuals. The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual ... Please consider adding the concepts in the RDA. "The right of the individual qualified citizen voter to participate in and directly elect all candidates by popular vote in all pertinent local, state, and federal elections shall not be questioned and the right to vote is limited to individuals. The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual ... Folks, its called a first draft, ambiguity is taken care of in committee, if the amendment is written well and of course all federal law, in this case constitutional law (which is the highest law in the land) is applicable to the local level Folks, its called a first draft, ambiguity is taken care of in committee, if the amendment is written well and of course all federal law, in this case constitutional law (which is the highest law in the land) is applicable to the local level Question: Would cities and counties also have the ability to set campaign limits on local elections? Question: Would cities and counties also have the ability to set campaign limits on local elections? Please support this first step to reviving our legislators independence. He who pays the piper calls the tune. How can we expect legislators to serve all of our interests when a monied few will decide who gets elected and reelected. Please support this first step to reviving our legislators independence. He who pays the piper calls the tune. How can we expect legislators to serve all of our interests when a monied few will decide who gets elected and reelected. First of all, this is ridiculously vague and basically says Congress can write any legislation it wants. They are protecting the Unions who give the DEMS millions and millions of campaign dollars who in return give the Unions the contract breaking the back of the American taxpayer. First of all, this is ridiculously vague and basically says Congress can write any legislation it wants. They are protecting the Unions who give the DEMS millions and millions of campaign dollars who in return give the Unions the contract breaking the back of the American taxpayer. It's a start. Count me in as supporting an amendmnt that will repeal corporate "personhood". It's a start. Count me in as supporting an amendmnt that will repeal corporate "personhood". A "money is not speech" clause would be dangerous. How about "congress shall protect and enable the right of all candidates for office to be heard on equal footing and in equal amounts." A "money is not speech" clause would be dangerous. How about "congress shall protect and enable the right of all candidates for office to be heard on equal footing and in equal amounts." A lot of commentators are missing how vague ana mendment MUST be in order to appeal broadly and be able to be interpreted differently as times change. Once the power is enabled, the details are in legislation. A lot of commentators are missing how vague ana mendment MUST be in order to appeal broadly and be able to be interpreted differently as times change. Once the power is enabled, the details are in legislation. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Do they think we are stupid enough to believe that it is a solution to give the people who benefit from no regulation the "right" to regulate themselves? It is a token offer that has no teeth. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Do they think we are stupid enough to believe that it is a solution to give the people who benefit from no regulation the "right" to regulate themselves? It is a token offer that has no teeth. This will not solve the problems created by Citizens United or Buckley cases. It needs at a minimum: "For purposes of Federal elections, a "person" is defined as a human being who is a citizen of the United States. Money and inkind contibutions to candidates for such offices shall not constitute "speech" under Amendment 1 to this Constitution." As is this will only set in stone the status quo. This will not solve the problems created by Citizens United or Buckley cases. It needs at a minimum: "For purposes of Federal elections, a "person" is defined as a human being who is a citizen of the United States. Money and inkind contibutions to candidates for such offices shall not constitute "speech" under Amendment 1 to this Constitution." As is this will only set in stone the status quo. Any amendment needs to clearly state that corporations are NOT people, thus overturning Citizens United, and that money is not speach. As it is now stated, this amendment does neither. Any amendment needs to clearly state that corporations are NOT people, thus overturning Citizens United, and that money is not speach. As it is now stated, this amendment does neither. This will not work. The whole reason this movement began is because politicians at both the federal and state levels have proven themselves unable to self-regulate. Granting them the power to regulate themselves by force of legislation will not end the influence of corporate money on politics - it will merely formalize it. This will not work. The whole reason this movement began is because politicians at both the federal and state levels have proven themselves unable to self-regulate. Granting them the power to regulate themselves by force of legislation will not end the influence of corporate money on politics - it will merely formalize it. this amendment does nothing but return control back to the people who are corrupted by the $$ influence in the first place. We need an amendment that bans non-citizen contributions period. http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-real-amendment-to-permanently-ban-of-influence-f/#comment-264817 this amendment does nothing but return control back to the people who are corrupted by the $$ influence in the first place. We need an amendment that bans non-citizen contributions period. http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-real-amendment-to-permanently-ban-of-influence-f/#comment-264817 Verbose & impotent. Try: "1. Congress may regulate political campaign funding as it chooses. "2. Corporations are not persons; Money is not speech." and "...when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within one hundred years after the date of its submission by the Congress:" 7 years cedes Congress's power & duty to the whims of the Supreme Court. Verbose & impotent. Try: "1. Congress may regulate political campaign funding as it chooses. "2. Corporations are not persons; Money is not speech." and "...when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within one hundred years after the date of its submission by the Congress:" 7 years cedes Congress's power & duty to the whims of the Supreme Court. It is intentionally vague for a reason... "Any one person or entity can not contribute more than (fill in the blank) to any one candidate..." It's like writing a blank check. They can choose the amount and the people still get screwed. It is intentionally vague for a reason... "Any one person or entity can not contribute more than (fill in the blank) to any one candidate..." It's like writing a blank check. They can choose the amount and the people still get screwed. " Evidence of any attempt to donate by any means, or actual donation of more than $2,500 to any public official, by any means shall be prima facie proof of the crime of bribing a public official and punishable by established statutes. " Evidence of any attempt to donate by any means, or actual donation of more than $2,500 to any public official, by any means shall be prima facie proof of the crime of bribing a public official and punishable by established statutes. Where's the beef? All filler no meat. It's not that I don't trust you. Oh, yes it is. No mumbo jumbo loopholes. Common sense has left the halls of D.C. Time to bring it back if you are serious. If not move over. Where's the beef? All filler no meat. It's not that I don't trust you. Oh, yes it is. No mumbo jumbo loopholes. Common sense has left the halls of D.C. Time to bring it back if you are serious. If not move over. I do not understand how they can propose this amendment without including some obvious safeguard phrases such as "unbiased for or against any party or person" and "neutral with regard to incumbent or challenger" etc. Thats just common sense, or this will just be shot down like a one-winged duck. I do not understand how they can propose this amendment without including some obvious safeguard phrases such as "unbiased for or against any party or person" and "neutral with regard to incumbent or challenger" etc. Thats just common sense, or this will just be shot down like a one-winged duck.