back
6 comments
If only our forefathers would've had the sense to put a no donation / fundraising clause for elections... instead the gov't would give a lump sum--equal to each candidate, and that is the ONLY money they could use for their campaign and they would have to make it stretch the best---we'd have some tight leaders who can actually budget sensibly if that ever happened.
Unfortunately it won't go anywhere because it doesn't have bipartisan support. Not a single R cosponsor. If it somehow passed the Senate, it would die in the House. What a waste.
This is a good idea, but how does it affect the Hearsts and Murdochs of the world? It looks like it wouldn't. Maybe it shouldn't! I think there will be many fun discussions around this.
Lets deal with the Koch-s first. If the internet remains free (a whole other fight), the media moguls influence will diminish.

But its a snowball's chance in hell this will pass.

Congress shall have power? That doesn't sound right to me. I thought the US Constitution was based on stuff the government is not allowed to do, not on stuff it's allowed to do.

I don't know but I have a bad feeling about the way this amendment is written. I think it could be abused by the government in ways we're not expecting right now.

The phrase "Congress shall have power" occurs 3 times in the original constitution and another eight times in the various amendments.

I agree that congress is probably not the best body for setting campaign finance regulations, but I don't think there's anything in this particular amendment that's out of line with the rest of the constitution.