Paper Two
There is a myth that the United States has a two party system. We do not. We have a multiparty system that over the centuries has seen many different political parties come and go. Remember the Whigs? That we usually have two dominate parties leading to a de facto two party system is beside the point. There is nothing in our constitution that either endorses nor denies the existence of political parties. You can, in fact, go ahead and make one yourself. You can call it "The Founders Party" or some other catchy name then come up with a platform and get the word out. Keep in mind though, the competition is fierce and finding enough like minded individuals to join your party can be difficult. You may have to make promises that can only be kept by specific corrupt legislative actions. But success can mean power and domination and setting the agenda for government for the people who both support you and those who don't. You can write and pass laws to help friends or significant political supporters. Get enough Senators and Representatives who claim membership in your party and laws can be ignored and corruption rewarded. What is to stop you?
In the United Stated we call it "The Constitution". The government described in that document cannot write laws contrary to the document itself. Article VI says so. The devil, however, lies in the interpretation of the intent of the articles, sections and paragraphs of The U.S Constitution; an imperfect document written by imperfect people. Imperfection is actually included in the preamble through the words; to form a more perfect union. Not a perfect one but a more perfect one. Toward this unobtainable goal of perfection the framers added Article V providing for amendments.
There are 27 amendments thus far and they have had profound results including The Bill of Rights, creating income tax, abolishing slavery, changing senators from the intent of wise appointees to basically a 6 year representative, and going so far as to outlaw alcohol. The last one turned out to be totally unacceptable so the outlawing amendment was outlawed, three amendments later, by another amendment. All hail the wisdom of Article V. With the ability to make such a profound and supreme change it should be difficult to pass an amendment, and it is. It has been 50 years since the 26th amendment was proposed and ratified. (The 27th was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992.)
This does not mean that significant decisions that affect most areas of our country have not been made, but it does support that those decisions were felt in keeping with the intent of the Constitution. It is to some of these decisions that we need the Constitution to be more specific in intent and meaning. For example, if corporations are simply a group of people then corporations should hold the same rights as people. To extend that, corporations should be able to donate to candidates as a corporation regardless of the individual desires of the people making up the corporation. And so it is. And since this was found in keeping with the intent of the constitution it will require an amendment to counteract it.
Corporations do not elect candidates, citizens do, yet both corporations and citizens can support candidates financially. This creates an asymmetry pitting multi-billion dollar multi-national entities against multi-thousand dollar live in a town or city average citizens. Yet it is these citizens of these towns and cities that our specific elected officials are supposed to directly represent. Candidates rely on the vote of their constituents but are instead quite beholden to their party. Their party is beholden to the faceless entities and wealthy donors for donations. And in the great circle of political reality these donations are doled out for loyalty of congressional support. Let us not forget that the candidate also has to get out there and raise money because a deadbeat party member is not long tolerated.
Corporations, like citizens, are free to support different candidates of different parties in the same race. Giving money to opposing groups seems counter productive but not when it is loyalty and influence of the candidate that matters more than the actual candidate. This is much of the corruption of campaign finance and the reason behind a frequent cry for meaningful reform.
While there are limits regarding direct donations to candidates these limits become less clear when dealing with political parties, PACs (tax deductible Political Action Committees), and their funding often via corporations, business and wealthy individuals or families. The candidate simply has to be a member of a party and that party, fueled by the money described above, supports the candidate indirectly through spending for their campaign and spending against their opponent, usually of the other political party, in the form of negative campaigning. And the sad truth is that negative campaigning is easy and sways opinion and votes. There is less thought and commitment to vote for the opposite of what we oppose rather than vote in favor for that with which we agree.
The career political goal then is to be a member of congress who can dictate the spending of their parties and PAC's donations subsequently doling out the largess to candidates for loyalty and, ultimately, their vote in Congress. Corrupt, yes, but it is good to have a vote go along party lines when the outcome favors the party leaders needs and obligations; be they Congress members or even the President. This amendment proposes to address the inevitable corruption of party politics and the imbalance that it creates.
Back to Top