Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance?

One of the most important issues Americans face -- if not the most important -- is the way money talks in our system of government. Candidates for every office, from city commissioner to president, are financed in their campaigns by major corporations and other special interests. When the candidate becomes an elected official, payback means that laws get passed, projects get funded, regulations get softened, in ways that favor the financiers of their campaigns, usually to the detriment of the rest of us.

The Supreme Court has equated money with speech and made it possible to spend obscene sums to influence would-be office-holders. The more money you have, the more "free speech" you have. That means that, whatever issues are most important to you, whether it's global warming, the Iraq occupation, education, privacy, or anything else, you're up against, not just another block of voters with different opinions, but corporate interests which can spend many millions to drown out your voice.

Not what the framers of the Constitution intended.

A few U.S. senators have proposed a Constitutional amendment to give the power of limiting campaign contributions back to the Congress. It probably has no chance at this time in history, given that everyone who's ever influenced anyone w/money will lobby against it. But, for what it's worth, here's the gist, from the website of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

With new fundraising records being set nearly every quarter in this year’s presidential primary contests, Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Arlen Specter (R-Pa), Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) today introduced a joint resolution to overturn the 1976 Supreme Court decision in the case of Buckley v. Valeo and restore Congress’ power to regulate campaign finances...

...“The cost of elections has spiraled out of control—and as the cost of running for office continues to rise, the integrity of the campaign process wanes. A perception that those with money have undue influence will continue to grow,” said Harkin. “We need to have a campaign finance structure which limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy.”

Recent Supreme Court opinions on campaign finance reform—such as in the Wisconsin Right to Life case—have reaffirmed Buckley, invalidated key tenets of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and further limited Congress’ ability to regulate campaign financing. This resolution would in fact allow for better First Amendment protection in situations where a candidate’s views might be dwarfed by a self-financing opponent. In addition to restoring Congress’ power to regulate campaign finances in federal elections, the resolution also authorizes similar power to each state for election to state or local office, ballot initiatives, and referenda.