Constitutional Amendments No Longer Needed

As I understand Justice Brett Kavanaugh's recent decision in Trump v. Barbarar , he does not believe that the text of the 14th Amendment that codifies Birthright Citizenship in the US Constitution is clear enough. So he cites a clarifying law, federal statute 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) from 1952 to interpret how we should actually understand Birthright Citizenship. He used this law to justify his vote that Trump's understanding of birthright citizenship is incorrect. That's fine.

Then he suggests that Congress could write a new law to re-interpret our understanding of birthright citizenship to something better. 

So Congress can just write a new law to change the current, clear interpretation of an amendment? Does that type of change apply to any part of the Constitution? I thought he was textualist?

I wonder how strongly he believes that a more liberal Congress has the right to pass a law to reinterpret  the 2nd Amendment?  How about a law something like the 2nd Amendment only applies to "arms" that existed in the eighteenth century?  If we only allowed citizens to carry muskets we would have a lot fewer mass shootings.

The Constitution certainly needs some changes.  But Trump has clearly shown that our assumption that presidents would have integrity and would at least try to follow the Constitution, their oath of office, laws, rules and precedents is outdated.  That system basically worked for 250 years, but not now.  The founders did not clearly limit presidential powers because they thought presidents would be men with integrity and any abuses would be handled by co-equal branches of government.  Unfortunately, the branches are only co-equal now in their desire for an unlimited executive.

Now we have a president who sees himself as a supreme leader, supported by a Congress full of MAGA toadies that ignore their Constitutional duties and a Supreme Court that wants a president with limited checks and balances.  They raised the president above the rule of law and interpret free speech to allow mega-donors to drown out the speech of ordinary citizens

The Constitution, the rule of law and legal the system is hard pressed to stand against such power.  Allowing a cult president to push laws through Congress using simple majority votes to modify the Constitution is not the answer.

One Person, One Vote. One Person, One Voice.

Money Overpowers Free Speech  

In line with the idea of "one person, one vote," why should some people and institutions have so much more "free speech" than the average person?

The First Amendment enshrines the right to free speech. According to Dictionary.com, speech is linked to communications from people. So why do we think corporations have the same right to free speech as humans? Corporations can't vote in state and federal elections. Corporations can't be put in jail.

When you give corporations and large groups of people the same First Amendment rights as an individual person, you diminish the rights of individual people. This is especially true when you pervert the concept of free speech to include money as a form of speech, as the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling did.

Anyone can speak in support of a candidate to encourage voters to support that candidate. But how can a person raise their voice to be heard in a media environment where corporations and wealthy people can spend unlimited sums of money to carefully craft messages and blast them across multiple media platforms?  My speech is of less value. 

One person, one vote. Large sums of money should not be allowed to diminish the value of my vote or the value of my speech. The number of people I, as an individual, can reach is limited. With large sums of money from an individual, a corporation, or a large group of people, there is no limit. We don't allow candidates to directly give money or gifts to voters to gain their votes, but we allow large donors the means to overpower my speech by paying for unlimited access to media sources.

The billionaire Elon Musk, for a little over 1% of his net worth, could finance every candidate in every federal election for a year. That is every Republican, Democrat, and independent.

Let's suppose you have a net worth of $100,000. Would you pay $147 to become the BFF of a U.S. president? Elon Musk could easily pay the entire cost of Trump's 2025 campaign (about $1.5 billion) for the equivalent of your $147.

Do you think that is fair? More importantly, do you think that is good for our democracy?

Only voting-age citizens should be able to donate money, goods, or services to politicians running for elected office, and the amount should be limited. It should be an amount that an average voter might be able to give.  It should be no more than a few thousand dollars a year.

I suggest a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money candidates receive.

How about something like this:

"Only voting-age citizens of the United States may donate money, goods, or services (excluding the value of an individual's voluntary personal services) to candidates running for federal office (President, House, or Senate). Donations must be from one individual to one individual candidate. Groups of citizens may not pool their donations; this includes married individuals. An individual may donate to any number of candidates in any federal election, but the total amount donated in a year, including all donations made to all candidates, shall not exceed..."

Obviously, I am not a constitutional scholar, so that is just a suggestion.

I haven't suggested what the maximum amount should be. I have some thoughts. The amendment should contain a formula to calculate the amount so it could change each year without the need to amend the Constitution later. The amount should be relatively low. Perhaps it could be based on the federal minimum wage, multiplied by the previous year's rate of inflation and then by some multiplier. That way, any non-inflationary increase in the limit would benefit the lowest-paid workers. It would also make it harder to raise the limit substantially without broader economic implications.

I also didn't include state and local elections or other ballot measures, such as bond issues. Those issues should also be addressed. I am more concerned about large sums of money from individuals, corporations, or groups (and yes, that includes unions) being used to influence federal elections, but limits on state and local elections should also be considered. I think $2,500 a year sounds reasonable.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is how much a single individual can contribute to their own election. As mentioned above, Elon Musk could easily pay for his own presidential campaign. Yes, I know he is not eligible to run, but there are more billionaires every year. This gets tricky, but we have a billionaire in the presidency right now. How is that working?

We need to get big money out of elections.