Draft amendment. Not yet rated or edited by the WeAmend community. Draft based off flaws in numerous versions of this proposed amendment.
Draft CF-20-01
Campaign Finance Reform Amendment
Section I. Advocacy[1] for elected representatives, candidates, campaigns, public elections, ballot issues, legislation and other similar political activities, whether by contributing funds or donations of in-kind equivalents, are subject to a yearly total expenditure cap across all such activities.
Section II. The expenditure cap of Section I is set, every five years, at one third of the median US household income.
Section III. Associations of people, including corporations, may collect Section I funds to contribute in unison. No other funds or donations of in-kind equivalents may be spent on Section I activities. Only citizens and legal residents may provide Section I support.
Section IV. Congress and the States have the obligation to implement this amendment through appropriate legislation.
It is often claimed more money leads to more speech, and more speech is always desirable. But Free Speech is not free when big money drowns out other voices. Our elections are not free when foreign agents or governments with their enormous resources can buy influence over American democracy. Our decisions are not free when the information required to vote is falsified or distorted by coordinated, well-funded special interests.
Sometimes, too much of anything is too simply too much.
Crafting an amendment to address campaign finance reform is a balancing act. It must be specific enough to avoid misinterpretation, general enough to serve future generations, democratic enough to allow free speech and expression, and restrictive enough to prevent corrupt influence and the domination of a few over the many.
To date, the amendments introduced in Congress are in the form of general enabling guidelines, leaving exposed vast opportunities for mischief or inaction. Some indirectly threaten free speech. Others will trigger unworkable clashes with lobbyists, or neutering by the Supreme Court. They will not get the job done.
Campaign finance reform via a Constitutional Amendment is problematic. Present legislators benefit from the current system, and will be loath to tamper with something that works, at least for them. Lobbyists and some corporations will fight to maintain a system that offers them preferential access and influence. And while the public has a visceral revulsion of election corruption and the abstract dissonance of “corporate personhood”, when the ACLU or the local church complain their voice will be muted if the amendment is passed, it will fail.
So how do we block the corrupt part of legislative speech, while letting as many voices contribute to the debate? How do we get it PASSED?
The key is to assure existing legislators and their challengers that while corrupt money is blocked, sufficient campaign funds will be available with modest to no extra burden. And, the public will be reassured because the proposed finance guidelines are on their face, reasonable and generous.
Just how much political speech is too much? As always, it is a balancing act. Political debate is an important civic duty, but only one part of life. We also devote our time and money to food and housing, to participating in our community, and to just having fun. Something is wildly out of wack if election spending becomes the dominate use of our scare resources.
This amendment suggests, when the average spending on political speech exceeds a third of the median yearly income (currently ~$20k), those funds are probably no longer enabling fair speech. They are simply buying influence.
By way of perspective, the median annual political donation is $100, while 80% of all funds are contributed by 0.5% of the population….
This amendment also bypasses the tricky legal issues around corporate personhood, or reliably determining if corporations are controlled by foreign interests. Corporations can spend money on elections, but only if they receive those funds from individuals for that purpose. With this low cap, even if a corporation is foreign controlled or declared a person, their share of voice is balanced against all other speakers.
This amendment allows both citizens AND legal residents to contribute to campaigns. Legal residents pay taxes, their kids go to public schools, and they are subject to all domestic laws, rules and regulations. Even if they cannot vote, they have a right of free expression, and to indirectly prevent taxation without representation by exercising their free speech rights.
No amendment is perfect. Enabling legislation, regulations and court reviews will shape interpretations of this amendment in response to changing values and external factors. This is an unusual approach-setting an actual cap rather than authorizing the Congress to write enabling statutes. Which may or many not include a cap.
But we believe the most direct way to achieve campaign finance form is to attach the root of the problem- concentrated wealth and influence.
Possible unintended consequences
- Companies will lean on employees to contribute to a PAC, perhaps give them a raise with the quid pro quo that they contribute.
- Companies, as a more interested party than the general public, have valid reasons to spend large sums to protect their business. Are we damaging this valuable business function?
- This amendment blocks foundations from making large contributions, because the foundation exception is often misused.
- A newspaper supported by subscriptions could dedicate some of those funds to advocacy.
- False social media campaigns and memes are inexpensive and disproportionately damaging.
- Illegal immigrants are banned from contributing to political campaigns. Does this mean they cannot hold street protests over immigration legislation?
- The amendment anticipates “news reporting” on bills is not advocacy, and thus not limited by Section I. But what happens when reporting is highly partisan?
- Additional bureaucratic costs incurred to track spending
Factoids
- About 1/3rd of Rep&Dems donate to campaigns. Many fewer independents.
- Median political donation $100
- Only 2.5M donate 200$+ and are in the IRS database
- 45,000 give more than $10k a year for a total of $3.5B
- 80%$ of donations from 0.5% population
- Adelsons, Kochs, Bloomberg etc spend $100m or more a year, and can afford a lobbying and communication army.
- Direct cost of Senate race $10m
- Outside money another $10m
- House $1.5m, little outside money
- >$1B spent on ballot initiatives– averaging $100m for top initiatives, mostly out-of-state money
[1] The choice of words is critical. “Advocacy” is different than “support” which is different than “campaigning”.