There are no great surprises on this list. The Koch brothers' network and the US Chamber of Commerce currently raise millions of dollars of dark money to affect elections, and their opposition to campaign finance restrictions is well-known. Other conservative interest groups, including the NRA, the National Right to Life Committee, and various religious right groups are also on the list. The ACLU's opposition to the amendment might seem odd to some, but they've long opposed many campaign finance restrictions as an infringement on speech rights.
Meanwhile, government reform groups, environmental groups, the NAACP and unions — most of which tend to have progressive sympathies — lobbied in favor of the constitutional amendment. But the broad opposition among conservative groups is the key problem for campaign finance reformers. Change is unlikely to happen as long as campaign finance reform remains such a partisan and polarized issue — which means the money will keep on pouring in.
2 comments:
"The ACLU's opposition to the amendment might seem odd to some, but..."
Odd only until one discovers that the Koch brothers have reportedly donated about $20 million to the ACLU. The ostensible purpose being support of ACLU action to oppose provisions of the Patriot Act. However, as it is with Koch philanthropic efforts elsewhere, such as those to PBS and various university endowments, subtle strings seem to be attached.
The suspicion of some sort of quid pro quo is not necessarily out of line and $20 million buys a lot of quid for that kind of pro.
Merely but one of the reasons this reader torn up their ACLU card several years ago.
the amendment bill hoax counted on a quick and sudden death. The Dems have no system that they are advocating to replace the current system, illustrating how systemic corruption really works. There is no bill abolishing money in politics for which an amendment is needed. The Constitution at Art 1 sec 4 and 5 and at Art 3 Sec 2, cl. provides Congress all the authorization needed without recourse to an amendment.
Back before politics merged with pure fundraising, the FDR Dems avoided substantive amendments because that's where ideas go to die. (New Deal, civil rights, progressive 70's reforms). The amendment strategy is a sure sign of a politics divorced from reality and married to political theater. Just for starters, an amendment requires 95% approval with only 13 of the 20 or so Koch States needed to block it. Even before "reform" Dems like Schumer proposed the bill, the hearings showed that Cruz, Abrams and the GOP held all the power under the battle flag of free speech. The amenders, even if they exploited public vulnerability sufficiently to get an impossible amendment, would be stuck with a Court that can interpret it any which way. The amenders, an example of a modern day cargo cult, think that wishing for it will make it fall out of the sky. They have no interest in following the master FDR, and his 3-9-37 fireside chat which handled a similar Court crisis in three weeks, while now we are coming up on 5 years since CU without a response that is any better than laughable.
Post a Comment