Congress in Contempt
The Senate is violating its own amendment process.

By Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and Arthur Fergenson, an attorney in Buckley v. Valeo.
March 22, 2001 3:00 p.m.

wo days ago, the United States Senate demonstrated its contempt not only for the Bill of Rights, but also for the U.S. Supreme Court. By a 70-to-30 majority, the Senate passed an amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill that would increase the $1000 limit on political contributions to a candidate if that candidate is competing against a wealthy opponent. The more personal assets the wealthier candidate contributes to his campaign, the higher the contribution limits would be for the less wealthy candidate — up to a limit of $6000 from any single contributor.

If candidates facing millionaires cannot be corrupted by individual contributions up to $6000, then no candidate can. In other words, the only reason for keeping the limit at $1000 for other candidates is that the Senate does not want more money being spent on campaigns.

The problem with this is that in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court made absolutely clear that "too much money" in political campaigns is not a constitutionally acceptable justification for regulating campaign financing. The Court held that the sole justification that could withstand constitutional scrutiny was the risk of corruption. Clearly this amendment is unconstitutional.

Apart from Supreme Court precedent, the relevant language of the First Amendment ensures that we, the people, either as individuals or in groups, will be free to influence the political process, to influence our government, and to influence our fellow citizens. This is what the framers meant when they wrote, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In addition to assaulting the intent of the First Amendment, the Senate is attempting to amend the Constitution without complying with its own Article V amendment process. It provides for only two methods of amending the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress…

If the U.S. Senate is not sitting today as an illegitimate convention for the purpose of amending the Bill of Rights, then for what reason is it sitting? It seeks to bypass the super-majority requirements imposed by the Constitution, and enact by simple majorities fundamental changes to the Constitution, to assuage the political passions of the moment. This is precisely what the framers hoped to prevent.