The first thing to note, the prelude to each section gives the purpose: "To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all." Apparently the congressmen have yet to read the Constitution they have sworn to uphold and defend: Article XIV, 1: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Constitution already addresses this.
Second, the whole idea is odd. The purpose of the Constitution is to define and limit the power of government. This amendment expands the power of government in a particular area, that being the advancing of "political equality." What precisely does that mean? What sort of power is required to advance "political equality?" It seems to me this opens the door to government scrutiny of the most minute details of our lives. It also provides the perfect vehicle for interest groups to push their agenda in the name of "equality."
Third, we note with some irony that this amendment grants Congress the "...power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections...," as if Congress is not already doing so. We can only conclude that Congress is presently violating the Constitution by having passed legislation that regulates campaign contributions. It must be if this amendment is required to empower Congress to do what it is already doing.
Third, we note with some irony that this amendment grants Congress the "...power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections...," as if Congress is not already doing so. We can only conclude that Congress is presently violating the Constitution by having passed legislation that regulates campaign contributions. It must be if this amendment is required to empower Congress to do what it is already doing.
Fourth, the amendment identifies its problem (big money in campaigns) through a Leftist political lens and prescribes the solution (regulate the amount of money that can be given) without considering if other factors might be coming to bear. In fact, the amendment empowers government in a very specific way to act regarding something that might not even be the problem at all.
Fifth, the Constitution is not the place where government's legislative prescriptions are codified. Legislative philosophy should be absent from the Constitution. In reality, the excesses of government ought to be dialed back by the Constitution. The government ought to be further restricted, not given even more power. We have overwhelming evidence regarding the failure of government as it exercises more and more power.
But as is typical for the Left, they view government as the problem solver, the agent of good. Every day is a new day, and nothing has ever been done before to solve problems, therefore we need more programs, more spending, and more government intervention, as if government previously was not involved.
But government is already heavily involved. There are many many laws regulating campaign contributions. Yet millions and billions are spent during the election season. And corruption reigns supreme. Can we conclude that government regulation of election spending has been a dismal failure?
The real solution is to roll back the power of government to its constitutional limits. The Constitution grants no power to solve social problems or redistribute wealth. There is no power granted to it to tell people what they can and cannot say, what they must buy, what they can or cannot do with their property or money if they are pursuing their private, legal interests.
If government was confined by the Constitution, its corruption would be less expensive and less impactful upon the People. If Congress did not have nearly unlimited power to spend money, then lobbyists and special interest groups would have nothing to influence, no congressman to buy, no way to steer money and favors their way. A Congress with limited power is a Congress with limited corruptibility.
So this amendment moves in the opposite direction. It gives government more power, special interest groups more reason to lobby, and it give Congress even more opportunity to become even more corrupt. But more importantly, it attempts to identify and solve a problem, a process for which the Constitution is not suited..
--------------------------------------
``Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and
electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising
and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal
elections, including through setting limits on--
``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in
opposition to such candidates.
``Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political
equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and
electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the
raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to
State elections, including through setting limits on--
``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for
election to, or for election to, State office; and
``(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in
opposition to such candidates.
``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
``Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''
No comments:
Post a Comment