Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Promises by 2020 Democrats mean nothing without a constitutional amendment

Opinion

Promises by 2020 Democrats mean nothing without a constitutional amendment

"Adding a free and fair elections amendment to the Constitution will ensure that special interests can no longer drown out the voices of the American people," argues Rena Goldman.

zimmytws/iStock via Getty Images

Goldman is the communications director of Wolf-PAC, a group fighting to amend the Constitution to permit more regulation of campaign finance.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates have each released plans to enact campaign finance reform, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Proposed changes include new laws, the restructuring of the Federal Election Commission, and the overhaul of federal election rules to eliminate the influence of corporations and wealthy donors — something the vast majority of Americans want.

And, while it's something Americans want, it's not what Americans will get.


First, most of these changes have one thing in common: They can easily be overturned, eliminated or revised. Laws and policies often change with election cycles. For example, take the McCain-Feingold law. Signed in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was a victory for campaign finance reform — banning soft money, linking campaign contribution limits to inflation, creating disclosure requirements and requiring candidates to stand by their political ads by stating their approval at the beginning or end of the message. It wasn't long before court cases began to strip the law. In 2007, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC opened the doors for more union and corporate money spent in elections. The next year, the so-called millionaire's amendment in McCain-Feingold was ruled unconstitutional.

Second, we're relying on the politicians who benefit from the current, corrupt system to change it. They have little incentive to do so, and tremendous incentive not to. This creates a dilemma: Either the proposed changes aren't designed to solve the problem fully, or a majority of politicians will never pass and implement them.

Adding a free and fair elections amendment to the Constitution will ensure that special interests can no longer drown out the voices of the American people. A constitutional amendment would provide a lasting solution because it goes above the Supreme Court and can't be easily repealed. To date, the only amendment to be repealed was the 18th Amendment, which mandated a nationwide prohibition of alcohol.

There are two ways to propose a Constitutional amendment, as described in Article V of the Constitution: when two-thirds of each house in Congress votes in favor of a proposed amendment or when two-thirds of the states (34 states) call for a convention to propose the amendment. However the amendment is proposed, it must still be approved (ratified) by the states. Ratification requires a vote in support of the amendment from three-quarters of the states (currently 38), which means that to become part of the Constitution, an amendment must have overwhelming support from the American people.

Throughout history, Americans have regularly amended the Constitution in order to address important issues facing the country. Amendments to abolish slavery and expand voting rights in federal elections for all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or age (18 and older) are two examples of how ordinary Americans banded together to create desired change.

Campaign finance reform is the most important issue of our time as it is the root cause of a federal government that's no longer responsive to the people. It demands no less than a Constitutional amendment.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less