NEWS FROM Washington » Adam SCHIFF

Taking Action Against Dark Money In PoliticsOur campaign finance system is broken, and it’s only getting worse.

When I first ran for Congress in 2000, the race became the most expensive campaign in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives due, in part, to a flood of “soft money” spending by outside groups. But the millions spent in that campaign seem almost quaint compared to the “independent expenditures” spent on House, Senate, and Presidential races in recent years.

On my very first day in Congress after that race, I immediately co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill to ban soft money expenditures. It passed and, for a brief period of time, the campaign finance system was more transparent. That moment of transparency was short-lived.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission upended our entire campaign finance system and unleashed a massive torrent of anonymous spending across our political landscape. It’s known as “dark money” – unregulated and anonymous political spending used to influence the views of the electorate. Most recently, at least $180 million in undisclosed dark money was spent during the 2016 presidential election cycle.

With their decision, the Court struck down decades of restrictions on corporate campaign spending. Essentially, it allows wealthy individuals and groups to spend unlimited amounts with the only theoretical restriction being that one can’t coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. But in reality, even when one of these so-called “Super PACs” is suspected of illegally coordinating with candidates, the cases are rarely investigated.

In short, here’s the current state of our campaign finance system: the Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedent, the regulatory process is at a standstill, billions are pouring into campaigns, and it’s all happening in an increasingly anonymous fashion.

It’s clear that now, more than ever, we need real and significant campaign finance reform that can’t be overturned by the Courts. As a result of the Supreme Court’s artificial distinction between contributions to a candidate and direct expenditures that have the same effect, Super PACs and anonymous donors have become the norm rather than the exception.

Last November, California voters considered Prop 59, a ballot measure that called on California’s elected officials to work towards overturning Citizens United and increase regulation of campaign contributions and spending. It passed – and Californians sent an unequivocal message that corporations must not have the same constitutional rights as human beings and that unregulated, anonymous money should not determine the outcome of elections.

That’s why I will re-introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ill-considered opinion in Citizens United, as well address other legal precedents which have made it impossible to regulate the billions in campaign spending unleashed in recent decades. I don’t do this lightly – and have had to overcome great reluctance to consider as significant a step as amending the Constitution. Yet the Court’s decisions pose such a tremendous threat to our democracy that we must act.

My amendment is simple – it would allow Congress to set reasonable limits on expenditures and also allows states to set up public financing for candidates, if they choose to do so.

The proposed amendment makes it clear that the Constitution does not restrict the ability of Congress or the states to propose reasonable, content-neutral limitations on campaign contributions and independent expenditures in order to protect the integrity of our democracy.

We have all witnessed the pernicious impact of unrestrained spending on campaigns. The flood of independent expenditures creates an unmistakable appearance of corruption and impropriety. Americans will assume, perhaps with good reason, that the levers of our government can be bought by the wealthiest members or incorporated entities of our society. This impression will ultimately demean and weaken our democracy.

It is my hope that this amendment will be part of an ongoing effort to restore confidence in our elections and address one of the most serious threats to the health of our democracy.