Lindsey Graham Says We Need an Amendment to Fix Money in Politics

In April at an event in New Hampshire, Senator Lindsey Graham was asked a question about what he would do to fight big money in politics. In his response, Graham pointed to the need for a constitutional amendment to address the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United:

Well, Citizens United has gotta be fixed. Y’all agree with that? You’re gonna need a constitutional amendment to fix this problem. I was for McCain-Feingold, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that provisions in McCain-Feingold basically no longer apply.

You’re gonna get sick of watching TV in New Hampshire. So the next President of the United States needs to get a commission of really smart people and find a way to create a constitutional amendment to limit the role of super PACs because there’s gonna be like $100M spent on races in New Hampshire — which’ll be good for this TV station — ripping everybody apart. You don’t even know who the people are supplying the money, you don’t even know their agenda. Eventually we’re gonna destroy American politics with so much money in the political process cause they’re going to turn you off to wanting to vote.

Senator Graham previously spoke out against the big money takeover of our elections n March, Bloomberg’s David Weigel wrote about a comment Graham made to a voter — again, in New Hampshire — about his desire to see some “control” over money in politics so it won’t “destroy the political process.”

“It’s the wild, wild West,” Graham told voters in Barrington, N.H., this month, adding: “What I worry about is that we are turning campaigns over to about 100 people in this country, and they are going to be able to advocate their cause at the expense of your cause.”

We acknowledge that support for the amendment is key, however Senator Graham voted against the Democracy For All Amendment, which would overturn decisions like Citizens United and Bucky v. Valeo. 

Poll Shows Americans Favor an Overhaul of Campaign Financing

Americans across the political spectrum fundamentally reject unchecked spending in our elections, made possible by Supreme Court Decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo. According to a June New York Times/CBS News Poll, there is deep support among Republican and Democrat voters alike for measures that would restrict the influence of Super PACs and for more disclosure of election spending.

In addition, the poll found that many voters reject the argument the ongoing Supreme Court jurisprudence on campaign finance that asserts political money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

In a follow-up interview from the New York Times, Teri Holland, 67, a former database manger and self-identified Republican from New Mexico comments:

“I think it’s an obscene thing the Supreme Court did. The old-boy system is kind of dead, but now it’s the rich system. The rich decide what’s going to happen because the Supreme Court allows PACs to have civil rights.”

Do you agree with the viewpoints of Teri Holland and similar voters? Let us know in the comments.