« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Simulating Repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment

By: AndrewHyman (Diary)  |  January 22nd, 2010 at 01:56 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

A lot of people at Redstate have supported the idea of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, so that U.S. Senators would again be chosen by the respective state legislatures.  One of the likely benefits of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would be that U.S. Senators would no longer be spending huge amounts of time raising money for campaigns, and would no longer be beholden to special interests; they would merely have to convince state legislators to support them.  Still, it seems very unlikely that the Seventeenth Amendment will actually be repealed any time soon, because amending the U.S. Constitution is very difficult and requires two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress (unless a constitutional convention is called).  Fortunately, there may be an easy way to simulate many of the beneficial results of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Congress could pass a law inviting every state legislature to identify its two or three favorite candidates for any open U.S. Senate seat.  If a state legislature does so, then Congress could provide public financing for those favorite candidates.

As Brad Smith has described, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on campaign finance will likely lead to increased support for public financing of congressional campaigns.  Conservatives ought to support such efforts at least to the extent that they simulate repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Recall that President Obama became the first major-party presidential nominee since Watergate to turn down public financing for his presidential campaign.  I think Obama was wrong about that, especially because he broke his own promise to accept public financing.  Hopefully, Congress will maintain continued public financing of U.S. Presidential campaigns, and begin public financing of U.S. Senate campaigns in a way that simulates repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • zroxx

    … the Supreme Court?s recent decision on campaign finance will likely lead to increased support for public financing of congressional campaigns. Conservatives ought to support such efforts at least to the extent that they simulate repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

    Personally, I see nothing at all conservative about giving federal or state officials the power to direct taxpayer funds to the campaigns of persons running for any elected office.

    Doing so would increase spending, empower central planners, and actually reduce the liberty of citizens whose portion of the tax funds they may have directed differently had they retained control over their own resources.

    Can you give a convincing argument in favor of public financing on conservative grounds?

    • AndrewHyman

      This idea would empower state legislatures, rather than central planners in Washington D.C. That’s also what repeal of the 17th Amendment would accomplish: empowering state legislatures. But unlike repeal of the 17th Amendment, the citizens would still have the final say by voting. Empowering state legislatures in this manner would likely produce more U.S. Senators who will defend federalism, which is an important conservative value.

      Another powerful conservative argument is that we want U.S. Senators to actually be doing the jobs that we pay them to do, rather than spending 90% of their time doing other things like attending fundraising events. This situation has gotten out of hand during the past thirty years. Public financing of U.S. Senate campaigns would only account for a miniscule portion of the federal budget, but would produce a better quality of U.S. Senator to oversee that overall federal budget more responsibly.

      If citizens are unhappy with how their state legislators winnow out U.S. Senate candidates, then of course citizens could vote their state legsilators out of office, and/or support U.S. Senate candidates other than those favored by the state legislators. So, I really think that the loss of citizens’ liberty would be negligible or non-existent. The current winnowing-out process is now done during statewide political primaries in which relatively few citizens (and often no independents) participate. The idea I’ve described would transfer power from the relatively small groups that are involved in the primaries, and empower legislatures to play a bigger role. Of course, we could probably save money by eliminating state legislatures altogether, and having a plebescite or referendum about every proposed law, but I think state legislatures are well-positioned both for legislating as well as for picking slates of U.S. Senate candidates.

      • zroxx

        I’m not sure how having state legislators elect U.S. senators is really a net positive over having state citizens elect U.S. senators. If the theory is that the will of the state citizens will still be carried indirectly through the state legislators, then why not eliminate that middleman and let state citizens cut right to the chase and carry their electoral will out directly?

        The transference of focus from the state citizen to the state legislator would likely come with a transference of time and money spent campaigning, not an actual reduction. I can see the ads… “call your state legislator and tell them why they should vote for John Doe”.

        The most recent election certainly stands as an example against the idea that we need state legislators to elect U.S. senators to get a more federalist minded Congress. I gather Scott Brown campaigned partially on rejecting a federally mandated health care solution on the grounds that Massachusetts already had a state level solution, right?

        Public financing of U.S. Senate campaigns would only account for a miniscule portion of the federal budget, but would produce a better quality of U.S. Senator to oversee that overall federal budget more responsibly.

        I don’t see how the conclusion follows. This strikes me as conjecture (or wishful thinking). A citizenry that actively tries to discern those candidates who are capable and willing to be financially disciplined stewards of taxpayer funds, and then punishes/rewards based on actual behavior while in office, will in the long term tend to result in more financially disciplined congresspeople. Removing direct election of U.S. senators from the citizens isn’t going to encourage them to be any more active and attentive to this matter, more likely, they’ll feel less empowered and more distanced from the process.

        If citizens are unhappy with how their state legislators winnow out U.S. Senate candidates, then of course citizens could vote their state legsilators out of office, and/or support U.S. Senate candidates other than those favored by the state legislators. So, I really think that the loss of citizens? liberty would be negligible or non-existent.

        It isn’t just the matter of eliminating direct electoral participation that abrogates citizen liberty in your proposal. It’s the fact that, for example, some government office would be making decisions as to whom and in what amounts citizen tax funds are given. The citizen in this case loses the control over their money to say I will fund this candidate but not that candidate. The choice is made for them and the choice is, you will fund both candidates (or all 3, 4, …) whether you agree or disagree with them. That’s an egregious assault on liberty and the right to do with one’s property as they see fit.

        The idea I?ve described would transfer power from the relatively small groups that are involved in the primaries, and empower legislatures to play a bigger role.

        Most state legislatures could be described as “relatively small groups”, couldn’t they? I’m pretty sure that the number of citizens involved in any U.S. senatorial election dwarfs the number of legislators in any given state. Your proposal seems contradictory in this case, by centralizing electoral power into the hands of relatively few persons who are themselves politicians.

        From a distance the idea of transferring electoral power from citizens to state legislators smacks of a nanny state mentality – only these very few elected politicians can really be trusted to attain the outcome we think is best for the people?

        But with regards specifically to public financing I still think that conservative principle point away from it rather than for it.

        • DONTREADONME

          Wrong, wrong, wrong, I assume you are OK with repealing the Electoral College then? Also, I assume you are also OK with Senators being beholden to the party rather than the voters or the state? But of course your argument will be the state parties will have an affect on who the Senator is? Example MA? Seriously, you don’t think things through. Again, I find myself asking the question, why bother with you? I will take my own advice and no longer argue with someone who goes right to the populist mentality.

          • zroxx

            But of course your argument will be the state parties will have an affect on who the Senator is? Example MA?

            What I pointed out is that Scott Brown was elected by the citizens, not by the state legislature. And he evidently has a federalist mindset. Therefore his election is an example contrary to the proposition that we need to let state legislatures vote for U.S. senators in order to “produce a better quality of U.S. Senator “.

            I take it you disagree.

            I assume you are also OK with Senators being beholden to the party rather than the voters or the state?

            Using the Massachusetts example, is Scott Brown beholden to the Republican party, or to the voters who directly elected him? I assume you are arguing that he must be beholden to the GOP.

            Again, I find myself asking the question, why bother with you?

            Why indeed. You certainly don’t bother to read what I write. Give us all another la-la-la and move along or make a better effort at not shooting yourself in the face.

            Maybe you can begin by telling us all how many (D)’s and (R)’s sit in the MA state legislature and how letting them choose the next senator would have resulted in a better outcome than the election of Scott Brown?

          • nessa

            …Appointment by the State Legislature would change the Senators basic loyalty, from the campaign money and the special interests/unions/who-ever donated the most to his campaign and cement his loyalty firmly with his State. It would empower the states.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    … you hate the 17th amendment.

    Repeal it.

  • renny

    We’d NEVER get a Rep. senator of any kind or stripe if the NJ leg. picked all our senators. At least, once in a while, NJ does come up with a Rep. (usually not cons., but any port in a storm), and hopefully will come up with one against Bob Menendez this year, as worthless a state rep. as any could be. He is a straight, lefty, socialist, commie agglomeration of race/union/academics/MSM that a cartoonist could squiggle in his sleep.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Whether it’s good or bad has nothing to do with temporary partisan advantages.

  • Richard Mullins

    repealed. Looking on past appointments here in Texas before the 17th, suggested that it could be someone of sane mind, but then again, the public here never seem to want a cookoo senator anyway. It will most likely be Republican and maybe a bit more Conservative than what we have now. I guess we will not know unless it’s done.

  • dwander

    I’m uncertain how the desire to repeal the 17th is a federalist philosophy. My understanding of federalism is a strong belief in a central government. Wouldn’t that equate to what the dems are currently attempting to do?

    Having the state legislators appoint the senators will probably have the affect of making the senate more attune to the state then to a party thus effectively increasing state rights and decreasing the authority of the federal government. I believe that would be better than what we currently have. IMO, the current methodology of selecting senators makes them more beholden to special interests then to their constituents.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • dwander

    I guess I don’t understand how repealing the 17th would make one a federalist? Maybe I misunderstood?

    Wouldn’t being in favor of repealing the 17th have more to do with state rights?

  • Achance
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I don’t know where you got the idea that federalism is the centralization of power.

    A federal system is one with a central government and a number of local governments, each side sharing power with the other.

    The Senate, having its members elected by state legislatures, gave the states a check on the central government. Likewise, with national laws preempting state laws wherever there is shared sovereignty, the national government has a check on the states.

    The 17th amendment took away the state check on the national government.

  • dwander

    Historically speaking, wasn’t the federalist party about a strong central government? If that is the case, how does that equate to states’ rights?

    Did the meaning of federalism change over time or am I misunderstanding what I have read in the history books?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The Federalist ‘party’ (not really a party; we didn’t have those prior to AJ and theDemocrats) was distinct in that it wanted there to be a balance of power. Anti-federalists wanted a puppet national government with no power over the states.

  • Achance

    What we now call federalism and states’ rights was the contemporary position of the anti-federalists. The federalist of the day were the ones more in to central government’ the Hamilton wing of the res publica.

    The meaning has changed over time, but in academic historical terms, you’re right.

  • dwander
  • Finrod

    .

  • jayburd
  • dwander

    Art,

    I was thinking that might be the case. I suppose the current Federal Society of lawyers might be the ones who have now changed the definition to states’ rights.

    Thanks Neil and Art for the Education!