Their proposed constitutional amendment to give state and federal governments more power to regulate political fund-raising — a blatant attempt to silence conservative candidates — has zero bipartisan support.
Not even Democrats’ most reliably liberal ally — the American Civil Liberties Union — will get behind it, calling it a danger to civil liberties.
Democrats know there’s no chance of securing the 67 Senate votes needed to advance the joint resolution. So what, then, is the point?
We’ll let The Atlantic spell it out for you: “These amendments are catnip to the Democratic base,” the magazine said. “The Senate debate this August ... is certain to raise a ton of campaign cash for Democrats — just in time for the 2014 elections.”
That’s something to keep in mind this summer when Republicans are sure to be denounced for rejecting a plan to restore “sanity” to campaign laws.
The only thing the Democrats are trying to restore is a decades-old system dominated by their Big Labor allies, which is why U.S. Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico introduced S.J. Res. 19 last year.
Democrats want Congressional oversight of federal political campaign finances, including independent political-action committees.
The ACLU insightfully recognized the danger in allowing the government — regardless of who’s running it — control over how Americans choose to endorse political candidates.
The ACLU said S.J. Res. 19 would “lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance” and that doing so would “fundamentally break the constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”
Free speech, one. Politburo-style thuggery, zero.