[Semper]

Without a constitutional amendment, the government simply does not have the authorization to interfere in campaigning or elections. I support absolutely no limits and no forced disclosure. It's none of the government's business how I support my candidates.

Do you really think the authors of the Constitution intended that non-local entities could contribute all the money they wanted to elect your congressional and state representatives? Also, when the Constitution was written, there were no unions, no corporations, no political parties and no PACs.

Constitutional amendment or whatever, something needs to be done. Our political system is corrupted by money. For any political party to gain and retain power, it requires huge amounts of campaign money and the way that works now is destroying our country.

[Jim Robinson]

I'd vote in favor of free speech and no on that amendment. I'd vote yes on an amendment to repeal the 17th and eliminate the senatorial popular elections altogether and have the senators appointed by their state legislatures as the founders intended. Then all elections would basically be local.