JUNEAU — Alaska Democratic lawmakers Wednesday proposed a move toward amending the U.S. Constitution to ban unlimited third-party spending in campaigns.
The resolution is a direct response to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts to outside groups in support of or in opposition to candidates for office. The court decision gave rise to so-called super PACs, the likes of which have made a mark during the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Alaska and are having an impact on the U.S. presidential race.
The resolution, introduced in both the House and Senate, would urge the president and Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to ban such unlimited spending.
It’s a long shot — two-thirds of each the U.S. House and U.S. Senate would need to pass a proposed amendment, and three-quarters of states would have to ratify it — but Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, and lead sponsor of SJR13, said other states will take notice if the Alaska Legislature takes the first step and passes the resolution.
That in itself could be a hard road but Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, said he thinks both sides — Republicans and Democrats — understand that unlimited money in campaigns is a problem.
Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, and the lead sponsor on the House resolution, HJR33, said he thinks there’s an appetite in the country to take this step.
“There should be limits on what people can spend,” Gara said, adding later: “This is about giving people their democracy back and taking it back from the billionaires who are distorting the process.”
Wielechowski said money shouldn’t equal free speech.
The Legislature, in 2010, passed a measure that, among other things, required disclosure of the three top donors to an independent expenditure group.
Another Democrat-backed bill, HB244, would bar corporations from contributing to campaigns. Gara said that if states pass such legislation, it would send a strong message to the U.S. Supreme Court the next time it takes up the campaign finance issue.
Comments (17)
Add commentCorporations are NOT people!
PEOPLE are PEOPLE.
The Supreme Court has thought otherwise
for about a hundred and fifty years
Moving target
Here's the problem. The Founders never envisioned many of the situations we now face, with television, 24/7 'news' coverage, a massive corporatocracy, nationwide unions, entrenched political parties, the internet, highly sophisticated political advertising practices...
If we amend our constitution to address these issues...what will technology or social innovation bring in 30, 50, 70 years that we never envisioned?
The solution lies with the voters. How do we make our voters smarter, better informed, more resistant to manipulation, independent thinkers?
Unions too
Gara says billionaires are distorting the process yet neglects to mention the teachers and the public employees unions.
Republic
Les Gara needs a lesson in civics. We live in a Republic; a Nation of laws, not a democrocy; ruled by majority.
AKjustice
Democracies are nations of laws as well. In fact, any system in which people directly elect or decide anything is democratic. And guess what? We live in a democratic republic.
Perhaps you could use the lesson in civics?
As for corporations, it's important to note that while corporations did exist when the U.S. gained its independence, they were small, largely irrelevant, and didn't resemble today's corporation at all. No one predicted that a business could become so large and powerful.
Why does the far-left hate
Why does the far-left hate the constitution so much?
@madison89: why haven't you
@madison89: why haven't you read the constitution?
The United States of America is a Republic
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I like the sound of that!
I also like free speech, um, let's see where is that found? Oh ya, in the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Maybe we should throw that out and do away with all the differing views and perspectives. May be we should all just shut up and let the lefties run things. I can see it now, electric cars that you are not allowed or able to charge up because there is not enough electricity for that because we all switched to electric heat because we could not get oil or wood because of green house gas (too much farting) because of our too green diets...
What a crock! This Nation is the greatest for a reason. If that has to be explained than there is no point in explaining it. Just look around and you can see the greatness.
If all you see is destruction and despair than you need to get another perspective; either attitude, elevation or surroundings but do get another look!
@AKjustice: I think perhaps
@AKjustice: I think perhaps you could use a refresher course on what the 1st amendment actually entails (hint: it does not prevent others from criticizing you--free speech works both ways, my friend).
I also think a history lesson is in order. Our country's immense wealth isn't due to its governmental structure (the British Empire was far wealthier and more powerful for most of our history, despite having a much more restrictive government with fewer freedoms for its people), it's due to the fact that we're relatively isolated from other major powers and we have immense natural resources. Also: two world wars that left the rest of the world in ruins but our country relatively unscathed (and thus able to snap up all the lucrative rebuilding contracts), and a system of free labor until the middle of the 19th century.
It's also decidedly unpatriotic to ignore the future of our country, which you and your type seem to do with relative abandon. Future America is still America, and by ignoring problems such as climate change, dwindling petroleum reserves, and a culture of consumption, you are hurting Future America. You'd say you care about this country, but your attitudes speak otherwise. Nor are you being patriotic when you go on about how great we are while ignoring our problems. That's not patriotism, that is jingoism.
Corporations as persons
Before the Supreme Court decision, someone sent me a list of court decisions starting back in the 1800's that said corporations are businesses that need to be regulated- not persons. I failed to save that list of court decisions. Does anyone else have such a list??
With the new, huge, anonymous-donor, "Super- PACs" it appears that there is a need to somehow control campaign funding and special interest PAC's.
I recently saw a statement saying that in 94 % of elections, the person or group that spends the most money wins. I don't think that's what the writers of the constitution had in mind for a representative democracy - that whoever has the most money wins.
That's my opinion.
reply to persnicity persimmon
I agee
Assumptions?
Assumptions on your part PP and by the way Adam Smith's views, not originally his own, on the free markets are all well in play and have grown way beyond anything he imagined. Thanks for the reading recommendation.
keep believing the BS
If you believe a donor and his family giving 11 million dollars to a SuperPAC is not affecting our country you are a fool. SuperPAC advertising is proving to be the worst thing ever allowed into politics. It not the voice of the people being heard when SuperPACs report over 50% of their income comes for less than 1,000 individuals.
I don't care which party, faction or group you wish to support. But I do care when you can buy an election with your financial well being. When a family of four can give more ($11 million) than the combined income of 200 other voters there is something wrong with the system. We are rapidly becoming the country governed by the choices of the corporations and wealthy.
I have yet to hear any of the GOP presidential nomination candidates go on the record claiming the SuperPac is a good for America.
Islander
I agree whole heartedly.
Most of us everyday folks might be able to donate $50 or even $100 to a campaign on the national or state level. But if that's all we can afford our "voice in $$" isn't going to be heard very much when elected officials, making decisions, wishing to be elected or re-elected, are listening to those who give them hundreds, thousands and millions of dollars. We will be shouted down by those with big, large, overwhelming "voices."
Voices calling in the wilderness
Akjustice, Brad F. your rant
Akjustice, Brad F. your rant is just that rant.
Foltoper
Thanks for the clue. I suspect that Brad F has mutated into Akjustice as one who comments. I didn't realize that might be the case.... I'm a slow learner.
Sheryl Crow may have said it best...
"You can say what you want, you just can't say it around here!