Unprecedented Political Spending Could Be Curbed By New Ammendment

November 14, 2011

The 2012 elections look to be a record year for campaign spending. Many projections put the spending mark at over $8 billion, with spending from outside groups making up much of that total. This massive spending will only increase the influence of special interests, and is all the more reason that action is needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

Despite the fact that only one political party will be holding primary elections this year, spending is projected to be nearly $3 billion higher than 2008’s $5.3 billion total. This is largely due to Citizens United’s elimination of limits on spending by corporations, unions and other special interest groups by declaring that money is equivalent to speech. This ruling has made moneyed interests more powerful in the political sphere than ever, and the effects are unlikely to be good. As we look for economic solutions that work for the average person, large donations and spending that looks out for small groups of people are likely to have deleterious effects.

Although it would be extremely unlikely to pass in time to affect 2012 election spending, there has been a joint resolution put forth in the Senate that could be very beneficial in curbing outside spending. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) along with five cosponsors introduced a proposal for a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn Citizens United.

While the amendment does not limit a corporation’s right to free speech or challenge the idea of corporate personhood, it does give both the federal government and state governments the ability to regulate how much money different groups can spend in support of candidates. If passed, this would limit the ability of corporations to influence our elections.

Unfortunately, this amendment is unlikely to gain traction any time soon. Too many of our Congressmen and Senators benefit from the massive spending that takes place in our elections. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, along with ratification by 3/4 of the states. With the strong influence that special interests have under Citizens United, it is unlikely many lawmakers will be willing to stick their necks out to remove that influence. But if they were successful, this would be a major victory in curbing the influence that money has on our political system.

Tags: ,

Related posts

Written by Jo & Ray · Filed Under Finance 

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.