Campaign finance amendment will get hearing

Most political leaders are content to complain about the negative effects of recent Supreme Court rulings that have eased the limits on money in politics, but U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and a few others are actually doing something about it.

That something: A proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and the states to regulate money and in-kind contributions in state and federal political races, including limiting the amount of campaign contributions and spending by and on behalf of candidates.

The amendment — you can read a copy of it below — contains a specific exemption for the press. “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press,” it reads. (That raises the question of whether the amendment would stop, say, the publication of a book or magazine underwritten by wealthy donors created specifically to attack a particular candidate. The infamous 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case turned on a video attacking Hillary Clinton that was released shortly before an election.)

Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy — chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee — announced he’d hold a hearing on Udall’s amendment, the first step in a long process of amending the Constitution. The amendment would require approval by two-thirds of Congress, which is 66 senators and 290 representatives, and three-fifths of state Legislatures, or 38 states.

“The Court has repeatedly used the First Amendment — not to protect the voices of all Americans, but as an instrument to amplify the voices of billionaires and corporations,” Leahy said in a statement. “Those voices are not the only ones who the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to protect. They meant for the First Amendment to protect the voices of all Americans.”

He added: “I recognize that amending the Constitution will not be easy. Vermonters have been leading the nation on this issue, and many in our country took note that our Legislature was the first to call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of drafting a remedy. Like my fellow Vermonters, I strongly believe that something must be done to address the divisive and corrosive decisions by the Supreme Court that have dismantled nearly every reasonable protection against corruption and against unfettered spending in our political process.”

Udall introduced his proposed amendment nearly one year ago. But it’s picked up momentum as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ramped up attacks on wealthy Republican donors such as Charles and David Koch. Reid today endorsed the idea of the Udall amendment.

“The Supreme Court has equated money with speech, so the more money you have the more speech you get, and the more influence in our democracy. That is wrong,” Reid said, according to a copy of his remarks. “Every American should have the same ability to influence our political system. One American, one vote. That’s what the Constitution guarantees. The Constitution does not give corporations a vote. And the Constitution does not give dollar bills a vote. From what I’ve heard recently, my Republican colleagues seem to have a different view. Republicans seem to think that billionaires, corporations and special interests should be allowed to drown out the voices of Americans. That is wrong and it has to end.”