The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: tom udall
Ted Cruz: Democrats Plan To ‘Repeal The First Amendment’

Ted Cruz: Democrats Plan To ‘Repeal The First Amendment’

Last week, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) made a religious-right audience gasp in horror when he announced that Senate Democrats were on a warpath “to repeal the First Amendment.” Addressing a terrified audience of conservative pastors in Washington, D.C., Cruz assured his listeners that he “was not making this up,” and that Democrats were really and truly attempting to do away with such honored rights as freedom of speech, the press, and religion.

In the words of Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler: Really, Senator Cruz? Really?

Cruz’s bold claim was inspired by Senator Tom Udall’s (D-NM) proposed Constitutional amendment that would grant the federal government the “power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents for federal political campaigns.” Nowhere in the amendment does Udall suggest repealing the First Amendment.

According to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), however, “In our society, spending is speech.” As such, it seems that Cruz has conflated the Democrats’ attempts to curb Big Money’s influence on policy and politics with an attack on the wealthy’s First Amendment rights.

In reality, Udall’s amendment is a response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling and the more recent McCutcheon, which have eroded limitations on campaign donations. Recent studies by professors at Yale and the University of California, Berkeley have suggested that individuals with the means to make significant financial contributions have better access to politicians, lending statistical evidence to support the widely held assumption that “financial resources translate into political power.” Consequently, eliminating contribution ceilings gives even greater influence to the wealthy donor class whose money serves as a megaphone in the political arena. Udall’s amendment — which is strongly supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has said he will force “multiple votes” on the issue — attempts to restore some equality in political representation.

Of course, this is not how Cruz views the amendment. Rather, the ultra-conservative senator told onlookers at the Family Research Council event that the amendment would give Congress the ability “to muzzle each and every one of you.” Ostensibly, when Cruz says that the government will “muzzle” pastors, he is speaking of the amendment’s aim of capping campaign contributions. But religious institutions — specifically churches, synagogues, mosques, and/or temples — are considered tax-exempt non-profits by the IRS, which means that they are prohibited from participating in, contributing to, or interfering with any political campaigns. In fact, the IRS expressly states:

Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

Therefore, if Udall’s amendment were to pass, Cruz’s audience would be unaffected, because they are and would remain unable to financially influence public official elections.

Moreover, Cruz’s claims that the amendment grants Congress “unlimited authority” to “regulate political speech” is equally untrue. The senator seems to believe that Congress would receive unprecedented power to check campaign donations. But what he has conveniently forgotten is that before Citizens United, there were ceilings in place to ensure that no individual (or individuals) could give unlimited cash to campaigns or candidates. So really, the amendment would simply return the campaign contribution landscape to its pre-2010 state, not create a new era of total government control.

For Cruz, however, Congress’ audacity to suggest that more money should not mean more influence places the United States in “perilous, perilous times.” The senator continued his histrionic rant by saying, “elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done.” Because for Cruz, criticism comes in the form of a check.

And while the amendment explicitly says nothing “shall abridge the freedom of the press,” Cruz takes issue with the fact that the amendment does not proceed to list every other aspect that will be unaffected, including freedom of speech and religious liberty. By this logic, because the amendment does not mention the guarantee of kittens’ safety, we may also assume that upon its passage, all kittens will be in immediate danger.

Luckily for Cruz, the likelihood of passage is slim — only 27 amendments have been ratified in the course of American history, as the process is long and difficult. However, regardless of the amendment’s chances, the probability that Ted Cruz has officially lost his mind — judging by these kinds of absurd claims — seems higher every day.

Photo: jbouie via Flickr

Want more campaign finance analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Senate To Take Up Longshot Amendment To Regulate Campaign Finance

Senate To Take Up Longshot Amendment To Regulate Campaign Finance

by Theodoric Meyer, ProPublica.

In a gesture probably more symbolic than practical, the Senate may soon take up a constitutional amendment to give Congress and states the power to regulate political contributions and spending.

At a Senate Rules Committee hearing Wednesday on the influence of so-called “dark money” groups, nonprofits that don’t have to report their donors for election spending, Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said Democrats would soon bring the amendment up for a vote.

The amendment, introduced last year by Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, would allow Congress to limit contributions and spending by campaigns, as well as by SuperPACs and dark money groups. States would be allowed to pass their own regulations.

The amendment could be the only way to reverse the impact of Supreme Court decisions that have struck down some limits on contributions by corporations, unions, nonprofits and individuals to both outside groups and, more recently, to political parties.

“It’s now crystal clear to me that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to allow meaningful campaign finance rules,” Udall said on Wednesday.

The amendment has little chance of passing, however, as it needs the support of 67 senators. Republicans are unlikely to vote for it. Many conservatives see limits on campaign finance as limits on free speech. Conservatives also have benefited more from the gusher of outside money so far.

Predictably, the hearing on Wednesday reinforced the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats on campaign finance.

Schumer, Udall and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Democrats on the committee who were at the hearing, called for new campaign finance restrictions. And Senator Angus King, the Maine independent who led the hearing and who often votes with Democrats, was particularly critical of dark money groups, the social welfare nonprofits and trade associations that can spend money on elections without disclosing their donors.

“In Maine, we have town meetings every spring,” King said. “Nobody’s allowed to go to a Maine town meeting with a bag over their head.”

But Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the ranking Republican on the committee, spoke out against new regulations as restrictions on free speech, pointing to a plaque he had brought displaying the text of the First Amendment.

“Let’s stop this fool’s errand of speech regulation,” he said.

At issue isn’t simply speech — it’s whether who’s behind that speech should be identified. Disclosure is something that many courts have said is paramount. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, for example, said that corporations, unions and nonprofits could spend unlimited money on outside election ads. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the influx of that money would not corrupt elections because of laws requiring outside groups to disclose their donors.

ProPublicaand other news outlets have written extensively, however, about the many ways groups have used to avoid this kind of transparency. In 2012 alone, social welfare nonprofits and trade associations dumped more than $310 million into the election. Who are the donors? Who knows?

As the Center for Responsive Politics reported Wednesday, the 2014 election is so far shaping up to involve more dark money than any election to date. And Democrats are narrowing the gap with Republicans, who have typically spent much more through dark money groups.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the other Republican who attended the hearing Wednesday, addressed the disclosure issue, at least partly. He called for allowing unlimited contributions to candidates followed by immediate disclosure of who gave the money. But Cruz did not say whether he also supported such disclosures by dark money groups.

A slate of campaign finance experts testified before the committee, including former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case before his retirement in 2010 and recently authored a book proposing a constitutional amendment to limit political spending.

In an interview with ProPublica after the hearing, King said he imagined Democrats would try to bring Udall’s amendment to the floor this summer but acknowledged that passing it would be difficult. He said he is more focused on passing legislation to require more campaign finance disclosure.

“I know there are Republicans who are interested in this issue and have expressed it,” he said.

He declined, however, to name them.

Photo: Center for American Progress Action Fund via Flickr