Dear South Cheatham Advocate,
I read the article by Senator Lamar Alexander in last week’s Advocate but had a hard time following what he was trying to say so I went to see what S.J. 19 (as referenced in the article) says on Congress’ web site http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19rs/pdf. The final version of the proposed amendment is at the very bottom of the link. It says:
• Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
• Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
• Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
Why such a total split between the Republican and Democrat Senators in their vote to accept or reject?
I thought that maybe adoption of the amendment was going to cost the government money to enact. Seems not according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) though they note that down the road, if passed, some cost might be involved (or not?). The amendment was characterized by the CBO as “an amendment …to allow the Congress and individual states to enact legislation that regulates the raising and spending of money on federal and state elections.” Furthermore, “In order for the amendment to become part of the Constitution, three-fourths of the state legislatures would have to ratify the resolution within seven years of its submission to the states by the Congress. However, no state would be required to take action on the resolution, either to reject it or approve it.”
After reading the actual proposed amendment I couldn’t figure out how Senator Alexander came up with statements that:
1. “ordinary Tennesseans would lose their ability to broadcast their views, but
2. billionaires could buy a TV station or a newspaper and say whatever they think, and …
3. Billionaire and millionaires would be the only ones exempt from the gag rule proposed by the Democrats,
4. Congress could tell a gun owner in Johnson City, Tennessee, that he or she can’t spend money to advocate in defense of Second Amendment rights if that speech falls too close to an election and threatens to influence the campaign of incumbents,
5. Or, similarly, congress might tell Tennessee Right to Life – you can’t advertise to protect the rights of the unborn, or
6. …they can seek to stop new political movements like the Tea Party by placing unachievable conditions on their ability to raise and spend funds on behalf of candidates they support.”
I called Senator Alexander’s office in Washington, D.C. to chat with him or an Aide who could elaborate on how the Senator came to such conclusions if the amendment was passed. An Aide (Jake) and I chatted about the article. He was careful to say that he could not speak for the Senator but could only share what the Senator’s position was based on in-office discussions. Jake indicated that Senator Alexander thought that a vote for this amendment would be a vote to overturn free speech of all citizens – both people and corporations (which are now considered to be people too!).
The Citizens United ruling said that corporations have the same rights as you and me (people) – and that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on advertising for candidates or issues as long as the money spent is not coordinated with candidates’ campaigns. Jake noted that the Senator did not like some of the language in the amendment’s focus which attempts to allow Congress and the States to guide and/or control the overwhelming amount of money that has entered politics since the Citizens United ruling. I know since Citizens United was passed my family is exhausted by the robo calls, robo polls, relentless mail, TV ads and radio ads from people and groups we often have never heard of – all badgering us to vote this or that way – often with doom and gloom pronouncements of unknown accuracy.
Polls have repeatedly shown that the overwhelming majority of citizens want extravagant money spending out of politics and they do not approve of the outcomes of the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision. The Pew Research Organization, a non-partisan organization found in a national survey, that people who identified themselves as Republican or Democrat were almost identical in their disapproval of the unrestrained use of money in political campaigns with 60%-R and 63%-D . They were similar in their approval rates as well with 17%-R and 21%-D. Though this is only one poll, a quick search of the internet will show numerous other polls that tend to show similar sentiments.
My point is not to make the case for a particular party’s perspective but to advocate for clear and honest discussion from our politicians about important issues that affect all of us and how our government operates. I am disappointed that Senator Alexander chose to recite the imaginary ‘worst case’ scenarios that may catch some voters’ attention or fears instead of discussing what his concerns are in a less inflammatory and more illuminating way. I’m not a constitutional scholar so I don’t know that an amendment to the Constitution is a good thing; however, I do know that discussion of issues in an irrational, extreme, and factually unsupported way does not help us (the people) understand the issues. One certainty is that we need smart, interested, engaged and informed voters, in the voting booth, to represent our interests here in Cheatham County and in Tennessee. I think that’s us! Don’t believe everything you read or hear; spend a little time investigating for yourself if it’s true and if not, why not. Draw your own conclusions then go vote in November – it matters!
Best wishes,
Linda M. Nutt
Kingston Springs