Citizens United

Please reference the Supreme Court decision: Citizens United versus Federal Elections Commission, 21 January 2010. Here is a link to the blog of the Supreme Court of the United States on this particular decision: SCOTUS Blog

Proposed Amendment

Only United States citizens eligible to vote may provide any resource, may initiate, or may participate in any activity to influence any election to any public office. The maximum amount that any single person can contribute to any single election is set to twice the median income. The activities of the press in reporting events and or of the media in the role of advertising paid for by these United States citizens is not abridged by this amendment. The right of these Citizens to create associations and legal entities for the purpose of advancing a political position is not abridged by this amendment providing all other aspects are met. All activities with the purpose or effect of affecting how other persons might vote are declared to be public behaviors and therefore not subject to personal privacy otherwise accorded to all.

Rationale

The rationale for each sentence is presented.

Ownership and Control

A major point is the ownership of any entity that buys advertising and promotes a candidate or disparages another. Who owns that company? What are the goals of those possibly foreign owners?

Many if not most of the people in the intelligence community are in agreement that in the 2016 presidential election, Vladimir Putin, and the Russian government, directly under his control, invested heavily in promoting Trump, and even more so in disparaging Hillary Clinton. There is evidence that they have already begun their activities for the 2020 elections.

The problem here is that the many companies have significant ownership by foreign entities. Those owners may include not only individuals but companies and foreign governments. Some foreign governments are outright hostile to our government and way of life. The prime example is Russia. They may have direct control over pollitical advertising and activities.

How much influence can those owners exert upon the political will of the companies in which they have ownership?

That is an open question. The answer can only be, probably too much. Possibly way too much. Certainly more than we prefer.

The recorded holding of the decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, quoted from this site, SCOTUS Blog follows:

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Please take special care to note that nowhere in that holding is the question of foreign ownership even mentioned, much less discussed. This is a major failure of the decision. In the light of the Russian government’s intrusion into our 2016 election, this must not continue to go unnoticed.

As this decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment is required.

Line by Line

Only United States citizens eligible to vote may provide any resource, may initiate, or may participate in any activity to influence any election to public office.

The amendment must be abundantly clear that only United States citizens, human beings, are allowed to take any action to affect an election. The phrase “eligible to vote” precludes any possibility of any business attempting to weasel in and find some method to control politicians. They will strive mightily to do this.

The problem here is that big business wants to not just affect but to control the laws that govern their behavior. Big business is not concerned with the welfare of the individual citizens, only with their bottom line. This is a matter of record and it does continue today. The individuals that ascend to the boards and high ranking positions within these businesses have a striking tendency to forget about the needs of the people, meaning the public at large. These people generally have sufficient funds to do just about whatever they desire so the needs of the common folk simply disappear from their perception. Their only perspective becomes that of making more money and gaining more personal wealth, and more political power at any cost.

Wealthy individuals and big busines have been able to take over the government in the past. It happened in Rome and the city/state of Venice. Neither one recovered. (More details on this soon.)

The maximum amount that any single person can contribute to any single election is set to twice the median income.

Individuals who achieve great success in life, in terms of monetary success, have a strong tendency to behave like big business. They will take any and every possible opportunity to advance their personal agenda at almost any cost to others. An example is the Koch brothers. (More on them at a later time.) The fact that an individual is wealthy does not impart upon them an ability to govern better or to have better ideas about government than the average citizen. As this is being written, D Trump is an outstanding example. He has more wealth that more than 99% of the world, yet, it is clear, he lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution of the United States. People like the Koch brothers and Trump should not be able to overwhelm the positions of hundreds to millions of citizens by virtue of extreme spending in advertising.

It is my carefully considered opinion that the general public is much more susceptible to well-funded campaigns than we care to admit. We must take this into consideration and put a limit on their ability to influence. By setting a limit that is tied to the medium income we accommodate the effects of inflation.

If we do not set a limit, and if we allow, for example, Congress and state legislatures to set any chosen limit, then one party can set the limit to whatever they desire and effectively nullify any constitutional restriction.

At this point in history, the year 2019, I do go out on a possible limb and make the presumption that if the Republicans had the power they would do all they could to eliminate any limits on campaign spending.

Oh! Wait! They have been in power and that is the state of things now. And they make and have made no complaints about this condition much less any attempts to change it.

But, to be complete, the Democrats are not doing much of anything. Therefore, this amendment is sorely needed.

The activities of the press in reporting events and or of the media in the role of advertising paid for by these United States citizens is not abridged by this amendment.

The freedom of the press is an important bulwark of our democracy. It is part of the first sentence of the first amendment. D Trump has demonstrated that he is incapable of understanding this. Since he so openly expresses complete contempt of the press, and his personal desire to have direct control over the press, we must be prepared for the event that we, the body politic, elect another president that is equally, or possibly more, unfit to serve as president. It must be clear that this amendment does not encroach upon the press and advertising media.

The right of these Citizens to create associations and legal entities for the purpose of advancing a political position is not abridged by this amendment providing all other aspects are met.

Individual citizens must have the explicit right to band together to make their voices heard. Still, that right will be explicitly limited by the first two sentences in that no individual can contribute beyond some limit, regardless of this venue in which they chose to spend their money.

All activities with the purpose of affecting an election are declared to be public behaviors and therefore not subject to personal privacy otherwise accorded to all.

Taking action to affect an election is not a private endeavor. It is an endeavor that affects all of those within the realm of the office holder. Those actions must therefore be public knowledge, not private.

This sentence bears in mind actions taken by the country of Russia and individuals acting for the benefit of Russia and its political and financial leaders. While some may still debate the amount, those actions did indeed have a significant effect upon the presidential election of 2016. With this sentence, federal and state officials will have legal authority to track down, for example, the activities of people and computer programs that use public media to affect the 2016 election. If the FBI or CIA, or any other appropriate law enforcement agency, makes a determination that a series of, again for example, twitter posts, is having an effect upon the voters, they may get the proper court’s permission to investigate. Those responsible for that activity will not be able to claim personal privacy in their attempts to hide their activities or the sources of funds that support said activities.

This bears repeating: The actions of public officials and the actions to get any individual elected, must all be considered as public domain activities. They are not private and personal activities, rather are activities designed to have an effect upon all. Therefore, all such actions must always be in the public domain.

Quotes and References

John Adams
When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny.

More Soon