Roll Call on Senate Joint Resolution 18
To amend the Constitution to allow limits on campaign contributions and expenditures
Introduced by Senator Ernest Hollings
Vote taken March 18, 1997
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the date of final passage of this joint resolution:
ARTICLE
SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office.
SECTION 2. A State shall have the power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or local office.
SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 31 LEG.
YEAS—38 |
||
| Akaka, Daniel (D, HI) Baucus, Max (D, MT) Biden, Joseph (D, DE) Bingaman, Jeff (D, NM) Boxer, Barbara (D, CA) Breaux, John (D, LA) Bryan, Richard (D, NV) Byrd, Robert (D, WV) Cleland, Max (D, GA) Cochran, Thad (R, MS) Conrad, Kent (D, ND) Daschle, Thomas (D, SD) Dodd, Christopher (D, CT) |
Dorgan, Byron (D, ND) Feinstein, Dianne (D, CA) Ford, Wendell (D, KY) Glenn, John (D, OH) Graham, Robert (D, FL) Harkin, Thomas (D, IA) Hollings, Ernest (D, SC) Inouye, Daniel (D, HI) Jeffords, James (R, VT) Johnson, Tim (D, SD) Kerry, John (D, MA) Landrieu, Mary (D, LA) Lautenberg, Frank (D, NJ) |
Levin, Carl (D, MI) Lieberman, Joseph (D, CT) Mikulski, Barbara (D, MD) Murray, Patty (D, WA) Reed, Jack (D, RI) Reid, Harry (D, NV) Robb, Charles (D, VA) Roth, William (D, DE) Sarbanes, Paul (D, MD) Specter, Arlen (R, PA) Wellstone, Paul (D, MN) Wyden, Ron (D, OR) |
NAYS—61 |
||
| Abraham, Spencer (R, MI) Allard, Wayne (R, CO) Ashcroft, John (R, MO) Bennett, Robert (R, UT) Bond, Christopher (R, MO) Brownback, Sam (R, KS) Bumpers, Dale (D, AR) Campbell, Ben (R, CO) Chafee, John (R, RI) Coats, Daniel (R, IN) Collins, Susan (R, ME) Coverdell, Paul (R, GA) Craig, Larry (D, ID) D'Amato, Alphonse (R, NY) DeWine, Michael (R, OH) Domenici, Pete (R, NM) Durbin, Richard (D, IL) Enzi, Michael (R, WY) Faircloth, D. M. (R, NC) Feingold, Russell (D, WI) Frist, Bill (R, TN) |
Gorton, Slade (D, WA) Gramm, Phil (R, TX) Grams, Rod (R, MN) Grassley, Charles (R, IA) Gregg, Judd (R, NH) Hagel, Chuck (R, NE) Hatch, Orrin (R, UT) Helms, Jesse (R, NC) Hutchinson, Tim (R, AR) Hutchison, Kay (R, TX) Inhofe, James (R, OK) Kempthorne, Dirk (R, ID) Kennedy, Edward (D, MA) Kerry, Bob (D, NE) Kohl, Herbert (D, WI) Kyl, Jon (R, AZ) Leahy, Patrick (D, VT) Lott, Trent (R, MS) Lugar, Richard (R, IN) Mack, Connie (D, FL) |
McCain, John (R, AZ) McConnell, Mitch (R, KY) Moseley-Braun, Carol (D, IL) Moynihan, Daniel (D, NY) Murkowski, Frank (R, AK) Nickles, Donald (R, OK) Roberts, Pat (R, KS) Rockefeller, John (D, WV) Santorum, Rick (R, PA) Sessions, Jeff (R, AL) Shelby, Richard (R, AL) Smith, Bob (R, NH) Smith, Gordon (R, OK) Snowe, Olympia (R, ME) Stevens, Ted (R, AK) Thomas, Craig (R, WY) Thompson, Fred (R, TN) Thurmond, Strom (R, SC) Torricelli, Robert (D, NJ) Warner, John (R, VA) |
NOT VOTING—1 |
||
| Burns, Conrad (R, MT) | ||
Related features:
Read a 2006 op-ed by Mr. Hollings in support of the Amendment.
We have long advanced an amanedment such as this as part of a three-Amendment platform to correct the anti-democratic judicial activism of the Supreme Court and, in one case, a failing of the Constitution itself.
Our 2006 amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in Randall v. Sorrell details some of the arguments for overturning the Court's "money = speech" doctrine.
Go to Home Page
Each week we review dozens of articles and essays from both corporate and independent media sources and choose one that we believe brings you unique or important information or perspectives on issues of democracy and corporate power. Opinions presented do not necessarily reflect those of ReclaimDemocracy.org.Index of past features
Fair Use Notice
This site occasionally reprints copyrighted material, the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We make such material available in our efforts to advance understanding
of issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is available without profit. For more information go to
: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.
