[EL] Cruz op-ed on proposed constitutional amendment

[Mark Schmitt]

Reid has endorsed the Udall amendment. That seems to be the main one in
play right now, vs. the ones that deal with corporate personhood.



113th CONGRESS
1st Session

*S.J.RES. 19*

*Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating
to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections*

*IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES*

*June 18, 2013*

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico introduced the following bill, which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.



*A BILL*

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to
contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

*Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled*, That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

*Article --*

Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for
all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral
processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending
of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,
including through setting limits on--

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election
to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in
opposition to such candidates.

Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for
all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral
processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending
of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including
through setting limits on--

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election
to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in
opposition to such candidates.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the
power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.




Mark Schmitt
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> What is the language of the hypothetical constitutional amendment that we
> are supposed to be analyzing?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Sean Parnell <
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe Rick linked to the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Senator
>> Cruz
>> <http://online.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-the-democratic-assault-on-the-first-amendment-1401662112>
>> regarding the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress
>> to regulate money spent in politics. There were a handful of examples of
>> what the Senator asserted the proposed amendment would do, I thought it
>> would be interesting to post them and see if anyone here, on any side of
>> the issue, wanted to either support or rebut the assertions. I’d note that
>> the claims made by the Senator largely mirror what I’ve said myself in the
>> past, so you can probably guess my thoughts on these assertions.
>>
>>
>>
>> If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed
>> constitutional:
>>
>> Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing
>> voter guides letting citizens know politicians' records on the Second
>> Amendment.
>>
>> Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads
>> criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.
>>
>> Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending
>> money to urge their views of abortion.
>>
>> Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind
>> expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.
>>
>> Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their
>> parishioners to vote.
>>
>> Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the
>> president.
>>
>> Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore
>> <http://topics.wsj.com/person/M/Michael-Moore/5437> ) and radio
>> programs—anything not deemed "the press"—that might influence upcoming
>> elections.
>>
>> Anybody care to explain how/why Senator Cruz is wrong, or failing that I
>> suppose, to argue that he’s right but that it’s a good thing these things
>> could be done under the proposed amendment?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>>
>> 6411 Caleb Court
>>
>> Alexandria, VA  22315
>>
>> 571-289-1374 (c)
>>
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140604/c2343e47/attachment.html>