The Amendment...
Explained
Section 1: Congress will set a limit on how much people can give to candidates, including those nominated for appointment like judges. Only citizens will be able to make those contributions, and they can only give to a candidate who seeks to represent them. Contributions would be like votes; each of us is limited to who we can vote for and how many votes we can give.
Today median income, the very middle of all income (half of Americans make more, half less) is about $36,000. So, the limit that anyone, rich or poor could give to each candidate for one election would be about $360 (1% of the median), which would automatically adjust as the median income changes.
Outside funding is eliminated by the phrase “seeking to represent the citizen”. It nullifies the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission which allowed individual contributions to an unlimited number of candidates throughout the country. Citizens will only be allowed to contribute to their local candidates, candidates representing their district, their two US senators and presidential candidates.
Section 1: Every second year Congress shall establish a single limit on the amount of wealth that any citizen may contribute or use to aid in the election or appointment of candidates seeking to represent the citizen in any government office. That limit shall not exceed one percent of the median annual income of all citizens of the United States.
S2, p1 The (approximate) $360 contribution can be made during a primary and again during the general, run-off, and/or recall elections or once for any given nomination for appointment.
S2, p1 The limit on citizen’s aid to candidates shall apply to each candidate for each voting event or appointment.
S2, p2 Any other help to a candidate is considered a contribution (other than volunteering; see Section 2, paragraph 4. For example, if someone prints brochures for a candidate, the cost of the brochures is counted as a contribution.
S2, p2 The limit shall cumulatively apply to all contributions directly to a candidate’s campaign organization and use of any resources to supplement or offset the cost of a candidate’s campaign.
S2, p3 The limit shall apply to the independent costs of producing and distributing any message pertaining to candidates or their campaigns when designed for or distributed to audiences who do not seek the message or do not know the identities of its financial sponsors. The costs of no other messages about candidates shall be limited by this amendment.
S2, p3 Section 2, paragraph 3 is the key element to nullifying the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision because it stops superPACs from advertising for candidates.
Independent advertising above the $360 limit is prohibited. However, candidates can still advertise, and all other speech about candidates from any person or organization is allowed.
What defines advertising here is the public's ability to choose to hear it. When you tune in to news, opinion and political satire shows, you know you're going to hear political messages in the show, so those would be exempt from this paragraph.
A movie or show financed by a candidate’s supporters would be permitted if it is scheduled and publicized as containing info about candidates and names its funding sources. However, the advertisements telling people about the movie/show can't contain any information or opinions about candidates, and those ads must identify the sponsors of the movie/show and warn viewers it’s about candidates.
By including the phrase "all of the costs of producing" and naming both producers and distributors prevents one person or group from creating an expensive video that others could just pay to re-air. Section 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 address this, and the requirement for naming the sponsor in more detail.
S2, p4 People can volunteer their time to help a campaign as much as they want, even if they have already contributed to a candidate up to the limit. And their personal expenses like driving to a neighborhood to knock on doors or posting their opinions with their personal computer, do not count towards the contribution limit.
S2, p4 The limit shall not apply to voluntary and uncompensated individual labor to aid in the election of candidates and the common incidental expenses of that labor incurred by the volunteer or incurred by citizens expressing their opinions about candidates.
S2, p5 Public financing is allowed and might be considered necessary if contributions are not enough to fund campaigns.
S2, p5 The limit shall not apply to resources granted to candidates’ campaign organizations through programs established by local, state or federal law that do not discriminate between lawful candidates. Such programs may distribute resources through publicly funded vouchers of equal size given by citizens to candidates seeking to represent the citizen and may establish funding qualification conditions that consider candidate's viability through favorable petitions of registered voters and matching contributions.
S3, p1 Contributions have to be reported--with tax returns, for example--but donors can remain publicly anonymous. This is because the size of contributions will not be enough to buy undue influence. Anonymous contributions are like anonymous votes.
S3, p1 Citizens and campaign organizations shall report to a governing federal agency all contributions to candidates that are not voluntary and uncompensated individual labor, but the identities of lawful providers of the aid shall not be publicized by the governing body or candidate’s campaign organization without consent of the provider.
S3, p2 No one can get around the contribution limit by giving money to other people so that they will make indirect contributions. And no one can make someone else contribute or punish them for doing so. For example, contributions to candidates cannot be a requirement before joining a labor union or to get a job promotion.
S3, p2 Neither individuals nor entities may subsidize nor interfere with citizen choices regarding the amount of wealth or labor that citizens contribute or use to promote or oppose the election or appointment of candidates.
S3, p3 Candidates cannot use campaign media that are funded outside of the legal contributions to supplement their campaign's advertisements.
S3, p3 Neither candidates, nor campaign organizations nor political parties may solicit other entities to independently sponsor media for use by the candidate’s campaign, nor shall any independent organization sponsor media for that purpose. When a candidate’s campaign uses independent media, it shall identify the source of that media and that media shall be in compliance with Section 3, paragraph 4.
S3, p4 This subsection is corollary to Section 2, p3 by describing what the publishers of media, social media and artificial intelligence applications must do. People and organizations that make movies, TV shows, etc. to help candidates, or provide forums to redistribute opinions about candidates or AI that accumulate and alter information about candidates at a cost greater than the $360 limit must reveal who they are, explain their algorithms for targeting viewers and warn people that their material contain information/opinions about candidates. And note, no message about candidates costing more than the limit will be seen (or heard) unless the audience CHOOSES to see it; thus the audience must knowingly take action BEFORE they see the message.
Also note, by cross-referencing this paragraph, Section 3, p3 prevents candidate’s campaigns from using media unless it follows this requirement.
S3, s4 All independent entities which create, alter or distribute public information about candidates shall precede that information with prominent, clear, simple and transparent means of public access to the identities of the sponsors whose funding of the entity or candidate information is greater than the limit established in Section 1, and explanations of the criteria, priorities and methods applied to that information distribution, and shall give audiences a prior expectation that they will witness information pertaining to candidates, and exclude audiences that do not choose to do so.
S3, p5 To prevent special interests from using legal delays so they can run advertisements for extended periods leading up to an election, enforcement agencies and opposing candidates can ask a judge to stop those advertisements based on their apparent violation of the law (meeting a standard similar to probable cause for search warrants) before final determination that they indeed violate the law. So this paragraph provides an incentive to the message sponsors to cooperate rather than delay the process so they can resume distributing their message and Section 5 below requires government entities to accelerate the process as well.
S3, p5 Upon a preliminary judicial finding that a message is in probable violation of this amendment or the laws established to enforce it, distribution and broadcast of the message shall be forestalled until final determination by a court of original jurisdiction.
Section 4 All other sources of contributions and advertising are not allowed. This closes the door on independent advertising from any source other than campaigns and citizens, which must be funded under the limit. This also prevents predictable and unpredictable loopholes, like contributions to candidates from non-citizens and foreign governments, or wealthy candidates funding their own campaigns.
This sweeping limitation also nullifies the portion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo which allowed candidates to spend their unlimited personal money on their campaign; under CFR28 they are subject to the same limit as all citizens established in Section 1.
Section 4 No wealth or assets other than those authorized by this Amendment may be contributed to candidates’ campaigns, or be used to supplement or offset the costs of candidates' campaigns. Candidates may use only the wealth and assets authorized by this Amendment to fund the cost of campaigning and advertising for election or appointment.
Sections 5 As with other provisions of the Constitution, Congress must write more detailed laws implementing this 28th Amendment. And those laws must be enforced not only against those who purposely violate it, but against those who facilitate violations as well. But enforcement should be proportional to the premeditation and magnitude of the violation. For example, a media outlet that unwittingly enables an illegal independent campaign message would simply be required to immediately stop.
Swift justice is important as well. During the period leading up to an election, the opposing candidate should get a hearing quickly to stop illegal independent messaging. This will likely require establishing dedicated courts and streamlined processes for the noncriminal court findings (like those referenced in Section 3, paragraph 5).
Section 5 Congress shall enact laws implementing this amendment to ensure manifold commitment to the integrity of American democracy and, with the Executive and Judicial Branches, establish processes and provide resources to expedite adjudication of disputes arising from those laws.