Good intentioned as this is, an Amendment allowing Congress/States to regulate campaign funding is a terrible idea. In todays congress, there's a good chance we'd get even more deregulation than SCOTUS allows.
I'm not sure I follow. Congress and the States do regulate campaign funding as it is. SCOTUS only interprets the legislation that they enact, and determines whether or not it is constitutional. That said, this part of the amendment sounds misguided: By definition, the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution, and rejects laws that are found to be unconstitutional. An amendment regarding campaign finance would define how SCOTUS should interpret all related legislation. Saying that some legislation is off-hands from SCOTUS would be a breach of the separation of powers, and yes, legislation that resulted in more de-regulation would be sheltered by the amendment. In short, I agree that the law could have the same bad result, but not because of the power it gives Congress and the States, but the power it removes from the SCOTUS.It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.
It would prohibit the reversal of legislation, because that's the whole point of the proposed amendment. You can find the text here. It would prohibit the Court from reversing campaign finance laws in the same way the Court is prohibited from reversing any other law that is explicitly outlined in the Constitution. It might be a poorly worded phrase by The Hill, but what they meant was that Congress would have explicit authority to regulate campaign finance that the Court couldn't usurp on any other Constitutional grounds.
Thanks. It makes much more sense after reading the actual amendment. The Hill's description is odd. So basically, it gives Congress the explicit Constitutional power to regulate campaign finance. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think I would prefer some specific goals of campaign finance regulation written into and amendment itself, and have the SCOTUS uphold or knock down legislation based upon whether or not it supports those goals.
That's not really how amendments or articles work, generally. They are lofty and high minded, and then it's tough work actually passing legislation and regulation to enforce the goal. For example, "The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;". There's nothing specific in there about how to regulate commerce. Same applies to taxation powers. I think they're going for something similar here. "Congress shall have the power to regulate campaign finance." It's then up to them to not fuck it up (unlikely).I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think I would prefer some specific goals of campaign finance regulation written into and amendment itself, and have the SCOTUS uphold or knock down legislation based upon whether or not it supports those goals.