Tragically, the American political system is broken. Elections are no longer about specific policy proposals or carefully weighed trade-offs. Elections are not about what benefits people or even a candidate's personal integrity. Elections are about money. The money to purchase advertisements for a candidate or to attack their opponent. The money to hire staff to endlessly call prospective voters and canvass entire neighborhoods. The money to hold rallies, give out merchandise, and plaster their image on every surface imaginable. The money to hire strategists who group test slogans and sound bites. The money to trick, deceive, and defraud the American people on a grand scale.
With this endless appetite for money, politicians need an endless supply. Of course, legal restrictions on how much can be donated by a specific person or business has traditionally limited that supply. Luckily for the modern American politician though, the 2010 Supreme Court case of Citizens United vs. FEC changed those legal restrictions. The decision struck down previous restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations as violations of the First Amendment. This ruling allowed unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions, setting the stage for Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), which authorized the creation of super PACs, and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which struck down other campaign finance restrictions.
The ultimate result is that politicians are far more beholden to special interests and wealthy donors than to the American voter. This shift has created an untenable situation where the interests of a politician are often diametrically opposed to the very people they claim to represent. Some people have recognized this issue and run for office as independents who don’t take money from wealthy individuals, corporations, or super PACs. Since they are at a disadvantage financially, they usually fail to secure a significant portion of the vote. The solution is simple: amend the Constitution so that campaign contributions are limited to such a small amount that they will not interfere with the right of the people to choose leaders who will represent them faithfully.
We have created specific language for this amendment that would broadly solve these problems. The main issue is that passing the amendment would require the support of Congress, and the politicians currently in Congress are the same ones who benefit from the broken campaign finance system. Because of this fact, virtually no one in Congress would be likely to support the amendment. This means that the future of American democracy rests on electing new people to Congress who pledge to support the amendment and run under its proposed terms regarding campaign finance. We need people to help find and recruit potential candidates, as well as run as candidates themselves, and spread the message of the amendment to organize the broader movement behind it.