Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Three pillars of conservative thought demand a constitutional curb on campaign finance

Opinion

Three pillars of conservative thought demand a constitutional curb on campaign finance

"Our government must be solely accountable to the governed — we, the American people," argues Jim Rubens.

mj0007/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Rubens was a Republican state senator in New Hampshire from 1994 to 1998. He's a board member of American Promise, which seeks to amend the Constitution to allow tighter controls on money in politics.

This month I shared the stage at American Promise's citizen leadership conference with Rep. Jamie Raskin, a liberal Democrat from Maryland. We differ on policy, but the two of us join most every American in agreeing on this deepest fundamental: Our government must be solely accountable to the governed — we, the American people.

To this end, to protect and preserve the world's oldest democratic republic, we will break the suffocating grip of concentrated big-money. We will get a 28th Amendment added to our cherished and ever-more-perfect Constitution.

Democrats are overwhelmingly on board. Two-thirds of Republican voters are on board. Now is the time to get Republicans in Congress to join us in large numbers. To do so we must persuade their most conservative constituents. And we can do that because big-money corruption is undermining three critical conservative priorities: capitalism, low taxes and federalism.


Our Founders unleashed capitalism — specifically, free-market capitalism — giving us greater wealth, progress and well-being worldwide than in all human history. But the current system of legalized political corruption has mutated free-market capitalism into crony capitalism.

Under crony capitalism, government picks economic winners and losers by doling out tax breaks, loan guarantees, regulatory favors and contract awards. Instead of delivering better products and services to customers, business competes by buying influence or submitting to de facto extortion in Washington.

The result? Innovation and new business formation have dropped to historic lows. Financial engineering is in. Capital investment and long-term research and development are out. Crony capitalism is why we have broadband and cellular dead zones, the world's highest drug prices, ethanol subsidies, too-big-to-fail banks and multibillion-dollar weapons systems that don't work.

It's why young and non-white voters — who will be the majority in a generation — now favor socialism over capitalism. The pay-to-play influence economy — not the Squad, not MSNBC — is the single most direct threat to free-market capitalism.

Now, conservatives come in several flavors, from small-l libertarians and social conservatives to right-populists and internationalists. We fight internally over abortion, trade, immigration and war. But one pillar of conservative thought connects all of us: keeping taxes low. And sustainably low taxes come from sustainably low spending.

Conservatives and progressives have both learned the hard way that big money does not really care about right-versus-left philosophy. Big money is united behind an endless push for more spending and tax loopholes for their favored programs.

And big money is driving big spending in a big way — because crony capitalism is so much more profitable than slugging it out in a competitive marketplace. A study by Open The Books published in Forbes magazine found that, for each dollar spent lobbying, the top 10 spenders got $1,000 in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts. A Sunlight Foundation study found something similar: For each dollar spent on lobbying and political contributions, politically active corporations received $760 in tax breaks, loan guarantees and contracts.

Pay-to-play corruption is why we're entering a time of trillion-dollar-a-year deficits. It's why Washington has recklessly loaded crushing debt service onto the backs of young people. It's why we've fattened special interests and starved spending on the infrastructure and blue-sky research that power long-term prosperity.

In the end, the bill will come due in the form of whopping tax increases. We can draw a straight line from the corrupt, big-money system to short-termism, twisted monetary policy, unsustainable spending commitments and punishing future tax increases.

To tackle this, conservatives want to amend the Constitution to mandate a balanced federal budget amendment; 28 of the necessary 38 states are on board for ratification. Conservatives need more blue states to get there. And we need red states at American Promise, where we count 20 states on board for amending the Constitution to allow more campaign finance regulation.

Our shared goals, ending high-tax fiscal insanity and big-money corruption, are joined at the hip. You can envision a beautiful red-blue reformers marriage.

In the past three years I've met with conservative state legislators from several states advocating support for a 28th Amendment. They are really angry at Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, big unions and even fellow conservative Sheldon Adelson for pouring billions in from far away to buy elections. In swing presidential states, tight congressional races and even state legislative contests, a handful of billionaires from San Francisco, Manhattan and (probable) Saudi Arabia are tipping the scales.

When I ran for the Senate three years ago, total spending on the contest was $132 million — 95 percent of it from out of state. This is absolutely not what the Founders intended.

Because the hollowed-out media concentrate coverage on the candidates with the big money, the home-grown and locally funded candidates stay invisible. Voters are overwhelmed with a blizzard of ads paid for with "dark money" and filled with unrebutted lies. Debate is narrowed, voters get even more cynical and the issues get nationalized.

A conservative favorite from our Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment reserves to the states and people all powers not expressly granted by the Constitution to the federal government. It guarantees respect for local preferences and political space to test and replicate successful policies. It makes the states our laboratories of democracy, and gives our form of government a unique structural advantage among nations. The corrupt, big-money system poses a direct threat to federalism, one of our strongest protections against the sort of tyranny that's spawned in the dark swamps of concentrated power.

In the end, conservatives in great numbers will join our movement because the pay-to-play, big-money system is killing free-market capitalism, exploding spending and debt and concentrating power in Washington. So those who want a 28th Amendment should have absolute confidence that Republicans have principled and powerful motivations to get aboard.


Read More

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
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
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

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

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less