As we head into a record-breaking $16 billion election cycle, a wave of members of Congress have tried to address the growing demand from voters to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. From Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act, which would prohibit publicly traded corporations from using super PACs and so-called “independent spending” to influence elections, to multiple House bills and Senate legislation aimed at reducing foreign spending in our elections, these members are heeding the call from their constituents to curb the corrupting influence of billionaires, global corporations and foreign actors.
Election spending has exploded since 2010, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision opened the door for corporations, unions and dark money special interest groups to spend unlimited money on elections. Billions of dollars now pour into races up and down the ballot, and spending rules and anti-corruption guardrails continue to be dismantled.
Just look at last month’s Federal Election Commission decision allowing candidates to raise unlimited money to influence ballot initiatives. Ballot initiatives are a law-making process for voters in 26 states, originally adopted as a reform in the last Gilded Age to enable the citizenry to bypass or curb corrupt legislatures. Like everything in American politics today, the ballot initiative process is too dominated by those who have the money to spend.
Members of Congress should be commended for trying to confront the toxic influence of unrestrained money in our political system. But until we address the reason why so much money from so few now controls our elections, things will continue to get worse.
The problem is a constitutional one, and requires a constitutional solution.
In the past few decades, in cases like Citizens United, the Supreme Court essentially rewrote the Constitution, deciding that the First Amendment prohibits Americans from having fair and even-handed spending rules to protect the integrity of our elections and the votes of all Americans. For the first 200 years of American history, no one thought that the First Amendment stripped Americans’ ability to limit spending in elections. Now, a handful of lawyers and judges have decided otherwise, and all Americans are paying the price.
For example, 86 percent of Maine’s voters approved a ballot initiative in November to stop foreign government owned or controlled corporations from spending money to influence elections there. Such foreign entities spent $100 million in the state’s election in the previous three years. Earlier this year, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to block the law, explaining that the law likely violated Citizens United.
Foreign influence is a threat to self-government. Foreign actors exploit dark money groups disguised as domestic organizations to funnel money and carry out electioneering activities in local, state and federal races. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine), who introduced their own legislation last year to curtail foreign influence in elections, point out the blatant national security risks associated with the campaign finance system’s opacity, writing that “it is undeniable—foreign agents and individuals, with agendas of their own, can affect our electoral process, and by extension, our daily lives.”
Such threats should compel us to create lasting reform to secure our elections, representation and free speech. We must amend the Constitution.
An amendment will affirm that Americans and our representatives at the state and congressional levels may set reasonable limits on political spending. American Promise, the organization I founded, advocates for the For Our Freedom Amendment, which has widespread support from around the country and across the political spectrum. Twenty-two states have called on Congress to adopt such an amendment, and polling shows that 73 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats support it.
The Founders gave us the amendment process to serve as a safeguard against harmful forces that threaten our freedom and ability to self-govern. Throughout our history, amending the Constitution has driven profound changes in our elections. Seven of the 27 amendments to the Constitution refined voting processes and expanded voter enfranchisement, bringing government closer to the people it’s supposed to represent. Left unaddressed, the current pay-to-play political system threatens that hard work of generations of Americans and the very foundations of democracy.
Voters are losing the ability to hold their elected leaders accountable, and unchecked election spending is contributing to a growing distrust in our governing institutions, fostering both actual and suspected corruption among those in office and intensifying the erosion of government’s ability to work for the people, not just those cutting the biggest checks. That’s why Americans increasingly view candidates as beholden to wealthy donors, and nearly two-thirds of voters from both parties believe that reducing the influence of money in politics should be a top priority for the president and Congress to address this year.
American Promise will share this message loudly at this month’s National Citizen Leadership Conference, where citizens from across the country will converge on Washington to connect with representatives in Congress and share our vision for advancing the For Our Freedom Amendment. If representatives and other candidates for office are truly resolved to reverse Americans’ lost faith in their government and address unrestrained political spending, they should pledge support for the For Our Freedom Amendment, get the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress done and return the amendment to the states for prompt ratification.
Jeff Clements is the CEO of American Promise, a cross-partisan organization committed to a singular vision: ratifying the For Our Freedom Amendment to empower the states and Congress to set reasonable limits on political spending, ensuring every American voice counts.
