It varies on grants. When they do come from corporations they are required to be disclosed on the publication and I know not to trust the study. CU's main effect is to clarify that campaign contributions (including from "people" known as corporations) are a form of legally protected free speech. The problem with this is when a candidate gets a contribution from a known donor with known special interests. In a practical sense, that is indistinguishable from a direct bribe, and it is responsible for much of the bad policy that comes from the government that screws everybody over for the sake of the campaign contributers interests. Case in point being medicare not being allowed to negotiate for better drug prices on behalf of pharma. If scotus really believes that the constitution protects this indirect sort of bribe, then probably the best amendment the constitution could get would be one that prevents this form of bribery.
While my sentiments are completely aligned with your own, I have two questions, I'm hoping you'll entertain. 1) Hypothetically speaking, how would that proposed Amendment work; how might it read? 2) What would you rate the chances (given how much political support is necessary, to pass an Amendment to our Constitution), of our lawmakers approving of such a limitation on the financial resources, which are generally considered to be part of any incumbent's (their own) advantage, over challengers?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll give it a first-draft shot: Anti-Bribery Amendment: Section 1. Elected persons and campaigns on their behalf shall not accept any special advantage from entities with known special interests over which they have or reasonably suspect could have influence over, and must expeditiously decline or return any such gifts or services, or else be guilty of accepting a bribe. Entities which contribute to campaigns, if applicable, must keep any special disposition of their contribution or other advantages strictly confidential from all except an official regulator of campaigns, if applicable, or else be guilty of soliciting a bribe. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. If campaign contributions from knowable sources occurs, this must include oversight by an impartial regulator to monitor for bribery. (end) I use the phrase "special advantage" because I don't mean just money contributions, and I don't mean things that benefit the congress as a whole (not special) like expert testimony, or if somebody contributed in a way that gave money to all persons running for a race. There are several possible ways Congress could implement it. If they want to keep campaign contributions similar to now, then a regulator of campaigns would be necessary to ensure compliance and look for evidence of bribery. But congress could also just do away with campaign contributions and replace it with something else, or other more nuanced approaches. People could contribute to a general campaign fund for all sides (ergo not special) rather than to candidates because they want the campaigns to have the means to help voters make an informed choice. The part that matters is that people in power don't know who is giving them a special benefit/advantage because it leads to quid quo pro, or that they don't receive such special benefits/advantages in the first place. But if some citizen wants his money to go to a candidate he believes in, and that candidate has no idea who is even giving him money, that's fine. No quid quo pro cycle can occur as long as it remains confidential. As for the chances. At baseline very low. It's very hard to pass an amendment and especially given how divided the nation is. On the other hand, there is no particular partisan advantage for one side over the other inherent to this amendment - both democrats and republicans have been corrupted over time, just often by different special interests. Rich corporations would be the biggest losers, so their propaganda against it would be a force to reckon with. It would require a real movement for it to happen. Many regular people demanding it all over the country. I don't think I could lead such a movement - not charismatic/extroverted enough, but I am sure it should happen, and could happen if the right people believed in it, and then they catalyzed the movement.
That makes two of us... Some though, still do, & always have. In the meantime, if you live out California way, I'm pretty sure Salvia Divinorum, a plant that grows beside the highways in So Cal, the last I heard, was still legal. I'm not sure if there is still a religious exemption, for peyote-- but you'll have to pass yourself off as Native American.
I must congratulate you on how well done, was your effort; better, in truth, than I would have imagined possible. Still, of your options, I think the simpler banning of contributions would be the more doable, though not at all easy, proposition. Not only as far as not being dependent on faceless regulators to decide whether or not a vote that benefitted Google, for example, was at all swayed by a contribution, or was this not bribery, since it did not affect the way the legislator would have voted, without the contribution; but also because, to get broad, grass-roots support, it is an advantage to have a simply-stated, slogan-worthy, message. Also, of course, even if a lawmaker doesn't know who the contributors are-- which is, nominally, the way SuperPACs are already run-- one cannot stop the lobbyist, if they are allowed, at all, in Congress, or to meet with lawmakers, either with a check or with the understanding that a check might be forthcoming, depending on the meeting, from asking the legislator about things that will signal the group's priorities (this is freedom of speech). It's a bizarre place we're in, that it seems more feasible to pass a "constitutional," law that bars all campaign contributions, i.e., makes all political campaigns publicly-funded, than to try & re-set a per-person limit (which, of course, goes a long way toward preventing bribery). But what even this lets out, are PACs, spending their own money to help particular candidates, which it would almost certainly be unconstitutional to prohibit-- though would we even want that prohibited? So perhaps the best, & most realistic, solution would be to throw out Citizens United, so that dollar-limits could be re-imposed. The easier way, through a new SCOTUS ruling, seems highly unlikely, for the foreseeable future. But even though a constitutional Amendment is a heavy lift, it has a lot going for it, in that it is already a well-known issue, with public opinion in-line with a nullifying Amendment, and the issue can be depicted very simply, in black-&-white terms-- don't let corporations buy elections! Corporations aren't People! and so forth.
