Pun Salad

Here they are: Charles Schumer (D-NY), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Thad Cochran (R-MS).

Their vehicle: S.J.Res 21, "A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." The amendment would grant Congress the "power to regulate the raising and spending of money, including through setting limits, for campaigns for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office." It would also grant power to the states to similarly "regulate" expenditures for their own elections and ballot measures.

It's meant to subvert a three-decade-old Supreme Court ruling (Buckley v. Valeo) that invalidated unconstitutional post-Watergate restrictions on campaign funding. Essentially, it means Congress gets to decide the rules on how much their election opponents get to spend campaigning against them. To briefly channel Jeff Foxworthy: "If you think this is a good idea, you just might be … a member of Congress."

You can read a slimy press release at Senator Specter's website that provides that side of the argument. It claims the proposed amendment would "restore Congress' power to regulate campaign finances." I will hop on my libertarian hobbyhorse to point out: Sorry, senator, that's wrong: Congress never had a broad-brush power to regulate campaign finances; if it did, you wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to provide it.

There's a (relatively) straight news story about the proposal from John Bresnahan at Politico here. Unfortunately, it uses the same tendentious formulation that the amendment will "restore Congress' right to create a new campaign finance system." John, please: you can't restore a right that never existed in the first place.

For better analysis, check out Steve Chapman's recent column. Good point there:

Such restrictions are an easy way to accomplish that end [of protecting incumbent members of Congress] in the hallowed guise of fighting corruption. Since they have numerous ways to keep their names in front of voters without spending money, incumbents have little to lose from spending limits. Challengers generally can't win votes unless they can deliver their message to voters, which requires sums of money that campaign reformers hope to deny them.

To their credit, Schumer, Cochran, Harkin, and Specter are at least honest enough to recognize that they need to partially repeal the First Amendment to get the powers they desire. But until they make it illegal, people are free to encourge voters in New York, Mississippi, Iowa, and Pennsylvania (respectively) to vote these guys out ASAP and replace them with any four other guys who have more respect for the Constitution.