Posted on 01/31/2002 2:36:49 PM PST by Political Junkie Too
If you really want to use Enron and Global Crossing to shape the political environment forever, then push the following elegant campaign finance reform solution:
Repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution.
Passed in 1913, the 17th Amendment made the Senate directly electable by the people. Prior to this, the Senate was appointed by each State Legislature. The Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be the States' representation in Congress -- the House was the people's representation.
The Founding Fathers made the Congress a two-chamber house for a reason. They wanted new legislatation to be passed by both a majority of the people and a majority of the States. They knew that public opinion was fickle, so they designed the House of Representatives -- the People's House -- to be proportional to the population and entirely up for re-election every two years.
However, they also wanted a smaller, deliberative body that would be intact over a longer period of time to mitigate the fluctuations in public opinion. They wanted a body that would be around long enough to remember the details and reasons for the legislations that were being passed. Finally, they wanted the body to represent the States -- sort of the State's seats at the Federal table. This is why the Senate has a six-year staggered term -- it takes 18 years to completely turn over -- and is why there is equal representation from each State, and also why the State legislature was to appoint the Senators directly. The Founders felt that State appointment would preserve State's power in the Federal government and would make the Senators tightly coupled with State politics.
What would be the impact on campaign finance if Senators were again selected by each State legislature?
It seems to me that the greatest opportunity for campaign abuse is in the Senate.
The Executive runs every four years, but there is only one of them and a handful of opponents.
The House runs every two years, but their constituencies are so small that abuse isn't likely.
The Senate has the longest term at six years and there are 100 of them. If you consider that elections frequently involve three to five contenders, then you are looking at around 300 to 500 campaigners raising money over a six year period. Each Senate campaign is becoming more expensive than the last one -- look at Huffington/Feinstein, Corzine, Clinton (would FALN terrorists have been pardoned if the NY legislature chose the Senator?), etc. Their constituency is an entire state -- millions of people from California, New York, Texas and Florida, hundreds of thousands in small states like South Dakota and Rhode Island.
If the 17th amendment were to be repealed, the Senate would no longer have the need to raise huge amounts of cash for their campaign warchests, since it would be State legislatures that would be doing the voting and they don't need to see 60-second campaign commercials every ten minutes for six months. Any lobby money would be spent closer to home in the respective states since there wouldn't be any "campaigns" to endorse.
This would also have the effect of making the Senate more accountable to the States, and would make people take more notice of their own State assemblies, since those are people the responsible for selecting the Senators to Congress. The "carpetbagger" issue would disappear, since it is unlikely that State legislatures would appoint some from outside the State political system as their Senator -- they would prefer someone with ties (favors owed) to the legislatures. If the people don't like they Senators that their legislatures appoint, they can vote the State politicians out of office and replace them with more favorable candidates.
Preserving State's Powers
The Founders felt that letting State legislatures appoint Senators to Congress would preserve State's power in the Federal government. They believed that this would make the Senators more accountble to the States. Today, with Senators directly electable by the people, there is no need for Senators to focus much on State issues except when public outcry is loud. Once elected, they can rely on the people's attention to drift on to other things, and then let the power of the incumbancy propel them through election after election. State legislators are much more focused on politics and will remember what Senators do or don't do. They can refuse to re-appoint a Senator who doesn't perform to expectations. They can reign in Senators who try to divert State funds towards bureaucratic Federal programs that do less good than the States could have done with the same money. They can reign in Senators who try to tie Federal money to mandatory regulations, or who try to pass unfunded mandates on the States.
The Elegant Solution
This is an elegant solution to campaign finance reform that doesn't interfere with the First Amendment. It is a new idea that hasn't been discussed anywhere yet.
The States appointed our Senators for 125 years. The people have been electing Senators for only 89 years. We should consider the 17th amendment as a failed experiment and restore the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The legislation should be simple to develop -- "The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." That's it. There are no constitutionality questions about it.
Actually making it happen is another story. I would think that the States would jump all over this to restore some of the balance of power with the Federal government. There are two ways to amend the Constitution: 1) Get two thirds of both Houses to propose the amendment (which will NEVER happen), or 2) get two thirds of the States to call for a convention to propose the amendment. Can you imagine how our Senators would react to this? Wouldn't you love to see our Senators oppose their own States' attempt to restore their Constitutional power?
This may all just be a pipe dream, but I think it's an elegant solution.
-PJ
In a column titled "How Might Makes Right [lewrockwell.com] ," Mr. Sobran writes:
The Constitution sounds great on paper. But how is the Federal Government to be prevented from exceeding its allotted powers? Originally there were three safeguards...Second, the Senate of the United States represented the states, and would oppose any usurpation of the rights reserved to the states and denied to the Federal Government. But the Seventeenth Amendment virtually abolished the Senate by requiring the popular election of senators, ending their selection by the state legislatures. By being democratized, the Senate became a redundant institution, with no special constitutional function.
-PJ
Another point in selling the idea would be that the constitution is not specific on the manner in which the State Legislature selects their Senators. Those states that still desired the popular election of their senators would be free to set up the process within their legislature as a sort of statewide electoral college. In this way, they would still be free to elect theirs by popular vote.
This variation in election methods would be entirely constitutional, while allowing the people to judge the effectiveness of the different methods in each state. This would be in line with "the crucibles of democracy" concept envisioned by the founding fathers.
-PJ
PING!
I bet one of the other two safeguards was the prohibition on direct taxation, with the exception of taxes used to pay down debts.
Usenet was conceived of by a couple of grad students as a "poor man's ARPANET" in 1979 and established in 1980.
So yes, it does go back to ARPANET times. It's scary to look at the Google archives of what I posted on Usenet back before the WWW was around! >cringe!<
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.