"We must get money out of politics, even if it takes a Constitutional Amendment." Reality time.

[merrily]

The first thing to know is that a great majority of all those polled want money out of politics, esp. anonymous money. The second thing is, after Citizens' United, getting money out of politics will indeed take a Constitutional Amendment. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/08-205. Saying that is highly unlikely is understatement. As a corollary, a POTUS does not amend the Constitution.

This combination makes a no-brainer for a Democratic politician in a roll out of a Presidential primary campaign. The third thing to remember is that, so far, no New Democrat nominee for President, least of all Hillary, has shown any distaste for money whatever when it came to his or her own campaigns, either before or after Citizens' United.

1. "We must get money out of politics...."

The great majority of Americans polled want money out of politics. Democratic politicians rail against Citizens United, including, Obama in a SOTU, when Justice Alito suddenly and notoriously morphed into would-be President Whisperer.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/campaign-ads/264087-poll-majority-want-corporate-money-out-of-politics

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/21/majority-americans-want-money-politics/

So, far, so good. How could any politician running for a Democratic Party Presidential nomination possibly go wrong running on "We must get money out of politics, even if it takes a Constitutional Amendment?" It's music to Democratic ears--unless those ears are located somewhere in the zone of reality.

2. "....even if takes a Constitutional Amendment."

Let's start with this: the last time a Constitutional amendment that was controversial was adopted was during the Eisenhower administration with a population that had been united by two wars in rapid succession, one against Nazism and the other against the Red Menace, both of which terrified Americans then.

By the 1970s, the nation was already so re-divided that a constitutional amendment ensuring equal rights for a majority of the US population failed to be ratified by the required number of states, although it did at least pass Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

I will hazard a guess that polls circa 1970 would have shown a majority of people polled supported equal rights. But then, the propaganda machine on the right whirred and no one on the other side managed to pull the plug on it.

Recall how very divided the nation is now, how easy it is to faux filibuster now, and how little passed through the 60-vote cloture requirement during Obama's first term. Also recall that the incumbents in both Houses of Congress today are mostly Republicans. Thanks to the 2010 re-districting and the advantages of Congressional incumbency, that is unlikely to change any time soon.

With all that reality firmly in mind, let's look at what amending the Constitution of the United States actually requires.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. And a convention opens up the entire Constitution for amendment, which most people consider too dangerous, especially today.

Absent a Constitutional Convention, Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

My darling fellow citizens, if we cannot even get 60 votes for cloture in one House, and the supposedly more temperate House at that, how are we going to get a 2/3 vote in both Houses today?

Even faux originalist Scalia says that amending the Constitution is much too difficult.
http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/index1.html

3. Maybe an even more important thing: Before Citizens United, Congress thought it was perfectly free to limit money in political campaigns and in politics generally. What did we have then? Loads of laws leveling the proverbial playing field and shielding federal politicians from the evils of corruption in politics? Um, no. The laws and rules before Citizens' United were notorious lax and still are. After all, who writes and signs that stuff? Even McCain Feingold was voluntary.

New Democrat Bill Clinton was the first President to designate a re-election War Room within the White House. That didn't go well for those who would like to see money out of politics, though it may be that Gore was scapegoated for what I can only assume was Carville's brainchild. And, it was money from outside the country, too. Remember that SOTU mentioned above? The one where Obama mentioned that Citizens United allowed foreign money in campaigns? Trouble was, 1992 and 1996 were both before Citizens' United.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/scandal/inside/

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/04/us/gore-says-he-did-nothing-illegal-in-soliciting-from-white-house.html

See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room

There seems to have also been some kind of FEC immunity deal for Hillary, though it first came to my attention as I was wrapping up this post and I frankly state I don't know much about it.

http://www.paulvclinton.com/FEC_Complaint_20090502.pdf

Hillary's 2008 primary campaign, also before Citizens' United, raised plenty, including from foreign donors--until the Obama campaign publicized donations from China, whereupon Hillary's campaign returned them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008

New Democrat Obama famously said he would abide by McCain Feingold if the Republican nominee agreed to it. But then, the Republican nominee, ironically, McCain of McCain Feingold, did agree. However, Obama reneged, raising about 3/4 of a billion dollars in hard money alone. The DNC did, however, unabashedly file a complaint with the FEC that McCain was not abiding by McCain Feingold. Things like using his wife's jet for campaign travel were cited.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-to-file-fec-complaint-over-over-mccain-funding-controversy/

McCain paid the money and that was it. No highly publicized prosecution. John Edwards on the other hand, was prosecuted vigorously by Holder's D of J, while the Edwards' kids were grieving their mom's passing. That case arose because a rich woman doted on him enough that she write checks for antiques, knowing the money was really to house his pregnant baby mama.


And the above does not even touch soft money, where the really big donations live.

Bubba also raised big money from other nations, like the Saudis, for his Presidential library, as I suspect most recent Presidents have and Obama will. And, while Hillary was Secretary of State, foreign nations were very generous to the Clinton Foundation.


This post only skims the surface. Yet, I am not sure I can even sum up this post. Maybe the first two paragraphs of this post are the summation?

Bottom line for me personally, "We must get money out of politics, even if it takes a constitutional amendment" is problematic, to say the least. Maybe we'll hear exactly how Hillary plans to get 2/3 of each House of Congress to pass this and 2/3 of the states to ratify.

I've often posted that the 1% could care less whom we marry and which methods of contraception we use. However, the 1% will care plenty about this. A lobbyist has said the dollars spent to get favorable government action get the biggest bang for the buck of any dollar big business spends on anything. If the ERA couldn't pass, I am not optimistic about Americans defeating Koch Industries, ALEC and others on this one.