The Senate amendment, which has a recent House counterpart, would give Congress and states the authority to regulate money spent in federal and state political campaigns.

Franken formally signed on to support the Senate amendment last week. It was proposed at the start of November by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico.

“Minnesotans’ right to fair and transparent elections have been severely compromised since the Supreme Court held that American corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections ,” Franken told the Minnesota Independent in an email. “This constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money in federal and state campaigns, which is why I strongly support it.”

The move comes as a slew of new Super PACs have raised millions of dollars in anticipation of next year’s presidential and congressional races.

An article in Las Cruces Sun-News, an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal, and commentary on NMPolitics.net point to a frustration by legislators, who say they are too tempted by corporate givings or represent a citizenry that has the financial means.

Moving towards a salaried Legislature would require a change to the state Constitution, but there appears to be political will and cross-party interest in pursuing that amendment.

From Las Cruces Sun-News:

The governor would receive support from certain Democrats if she pushed for legislation that would place restrictions on lobbying jobs for former officeholders or government employees.

“We need to do it because of the perception. The perception of corruption is what we need to get rid,” said Rep. Antonio “Moe” Maestas, D-Albuquerque.

He said he favored a bill prohibiting legislators from becoming lobbyists for one year after they left office.

“I’m happy for Kent for getting that big-wheel job, but I think a one-year restriction would be the right thing to do,” Maestas said.

Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, said he had greater concerns about legislative reform than when somebody can go to work as a lobbyist.

Smith said he was especially bothered by the fact that teachers from the Albuquerque Public Schools and certain school administrators can serve in the Legislature without a loss of pay.

He said these situations posed more significant day-to-day conflicts than former legislators taking lobbying jobs.

Lawmakers do receive stipends for the days they are in session, which last for 30 or 60 days depending on whether it is an election year.

The Las Cruces Sun-News also quoted a legislator saying an amendment could be proposed next year:

Maestas said Rep. Henry “Kiki” Saavedra, a 35-year member of the Legislature, could introduce such a bill in 2012.

“It would have to be somebody with the standing of Kiki. If any of the younger people tried it, it would be looked at as self-serving,” said Maestas, 43.

The group spent $9,757 on Nov. 1 for a direct mailing for Golding in Senate District 18. NOM also spent $9,847 on Oct. 27 and $8,009 on Oct. 18 for direct mailings.

On Oct. 20 the group spent $252 for a press release, and on Oct. 21 spent $1,539 for robocalls to 23,683 voters.

Social conservative group The Family Leader has also made expenditures on behalf of Golding, totaling $100.

The race is perceived as crucial for advocates and opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Democrats currently control the Iowa Senate, 25 to 24, after Sen. Swati Dandekar (D-Marion) resigned to take a position on the Iowa Utilities Board. With the Iowa House controlled 60-40 by Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has been the key bulwark to stopping debates on the issue.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2009 that the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause was violated by a legislative ban on same-sex marriage.

No independent expenditures have yet been made on behalf of Democrat Liz Mathis.

The election will take place on Tuesday, Nov. 8.

The three – along with Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul – spoke to about 1,000 people at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s 11th annual fall banquet in Des Moines. Tickets were $55.

Rick Santorum

Santorum perhaps outdid everyone, recounting the story of his political battle for a “partial-birth abortion” ban in the U.S. Senate and his family’s personal battle to save their unborn child when doctors recommended an abortion.

“You’ve heard a lot of policy up here from a lot of people and the choice for you is whether the folks delivering this are authentic,” he said. “Can they be trusted? Are they people that stood up when they had the opportunity and did what was called to be done?”

Santorum also said candidates should be willing to fight at the state level to stop same-sex marriage, as he did in Iowa.

“You’ll hear most everybody say they support traditional marriage and they support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage,” he said. “But you’ll also hear if you listen to debates, people say that while they may support a Constitutional amendment they don’t support getting involved in the states and making sure states don’t pass either through legislation or judicial fiat marriage different than one man, one woman. And that is all the difference.”

Rick Perry

Perry also pushed hard for support from the evangelical electorate at the event, saying in order for America to maintain its moral authority abroad it must set a high moral standard at home.

“That starts with protecting our most innocent and vulnerable, unborn children,” he said. “Fifty million have died because America has not guaranteed the right to life expressly stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Perry said he’s “taken an unwavering stand in defense of life,” and railed off a number of accomplishments in Texas: requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion; passing a prenatal protection act and informed consent law; requiring a sonogram before abortion; and defunding Planned Parenthood.

Perry also said his stance against abortion is “not a matter of campaign convenience, it is a core conviction,” and called for activist citizens to rally against activist judges.

“It is a liberal canard to say I am personally pro-life but government should stay out of that decision,” he said. “If that is your view you are not pro-life, you are pro-having your cake and eating it too.”

Michele Bachmann

And Bachmann said she’s “watched the destruction that has come on our nation” since Obama took office and it’s time for a very different president.

“This is the year when social conservatives can have it all, because in my experience a social conservative is a fiscal conservative,” she said. “A social conservative is a national security conservative. We can have it all this year.”

Bachmann also attacked Obama for not taking a stronger stand against abortion, and promised she would support a Constitutional amendment to protect life from conception.

“He said that he personally does not believe in abortion,” Bachmann said. “But he also believes the government should not intervene when it comes to the issue of abortion.”

Cain, Gingrich and Paul took strong stands against abortion and same-sex marriage as well, but their rhetoric was not as fiery.

Herman Cain

Cain didn’t focus on social issues during his remarks, but did say “life from conception, no abortions, no exceptions.”

He also promised to turn down any legislation that allowed for government funding of abortions, and said he’d work to strengthen laws that prevent abortion, get rid of activist judges and bureaucrats and defund Planned Parenthood.

On same-sex marriage, he said a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing traditional marriage is necessary.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich said he would defund Planned Parenthood and devote those funds to adoption services. He also promised to sign an executive order ensuring that no doctor or nurse can be compelled to perform any activity against their will, and railed against activist judges.

“Most of our major crises in our culture are driven by radical judges who violate the American Constitution, violate American history and do things that are fundamentally destructive,” he said.

Paul said “the family is in serious trouble” but claimed changing laws won’t mean fewer divorces or children born out of wedlock. He said morality “has to come from our heart,” and instead hit on his familiar small-government theme.

“If a government gets too big the family is undermined,” Paul said. “If we resort to the government taking over family responsibilities, whether it’s education, medical care, whatever, then the family is diminished.”

Ron Paul (ZUMApress.com)

But Paul also noted he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, and said as a doctor he understands life.

“I know when life begins, I know when I assume responsibility for two people because if I do harm to the fetus I can be sued,” Paul said. “So there’s no doubt about the morality or the legality of it.”

During the 2004 general election, Oregon was among 11 states that passed ballot measures banning gay marriage — 57 percent of Beaver State voters approved the ban. But in 2012, Oregonians might be given the opportunity to vote to lift the ban, if the state’s largest LGBT-rights group, Basic Rights Oregon (BRO), decides to it has enough support to start a full-fledged ballot-initiative campaign.

As The Register-Guard reports, volunteers have recently been working the phone bank at the BRO’s Eugene headquarters, trying to gauge support for marriage equality in the state.

Last month, Basic Rights Oregon announced it was exploring a Marriage 2012 campaign and, simultaneously, organized an advisory group made up of community leaders and campaign professionals to help finalize that decision in late October or early November.

“Deciding whether to go to the ballot is not something we take lightly nor a decision we will make alone,” said BRO Executive Director Jeana Frazzini in a statement on group’s website. “We want to hear from the experts and leaders on the Advisory Group as well as from the larger LGBT and allied community, because we cannot move forward unless we have a viable ballot measure as well as a supportive and engaged base of support.”

According to the Register-Guard, in 2004, gay-marriage-ban campaigners spent $2.5 million to push the amendment, while marriage-equality supporters spent almost $3 million.

The state’s leading marriage-equality foe, the Oregon Family Council, has promised to give BRO “the fight of their lives to protect marriage” if they start a ballot measure campaign.

If next year Oregon joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia in becoming the seventh state to offer marriage to both straight and gay couples, it will be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage via popular vote and the first to overturn a constitutional gay-marriage ban.

Meanwhile, campaigns to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage wage on in Minnesota and North Carolina, and GOP presidential candidates face pressure from social conservative groups to support a federal constitutional gay-marriage ban. However, contender Herman Cain made news on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” by saying he thinks banning or legalizing gay marriage should be a state’s decision.

“I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same-sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage,” Cain told “Meet the Press” host David Gregory.

Cain, along with Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), are the only four GOP candidates in the leading pack of eight that did not sign the National Organization for Marriage’s controversial “Marriage Pledge,” which among other provisions binds the signer to supporting a federal constitutional amendment “defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.”

Watch Cain on “Meet the Press”:

Robert George — founder of the American Principles Project, which sponsored the forum, as well as NOM’s chair emeritus — co-hosted the event alongside Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The final candidate roster was Bachmann, Georgia businessman Herman Cain, former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (Texas Gov. Rick Perry was originally slated to attend but dropped out at the last minute to take care of wildfires affecting his state.)

In an blog post, NOM gave Bachmann a “solid A” for asserting that Congress should outlaw abortion by authoring a federal constitutional amendment, following a question from George. In the post, NOM noted that Bachmann’s answer “breaks new ground” and praised the candidate for agreeing to choose a vice president who opposes abortion rights and marriage for gay and lesbian couples and for criticizing President Obama for not defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

From the debate, as reproduced in an initial transcript by CNN:

George: Would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?

Bachmann: Yes, I would. I would put forward a human life amendment. And, at the same time, I would do everything within my power to restrict the number of abortions that occurs in the United States. Perhaps no other federal law has done more good for prohibiting abortion than the Hyde amendment. And I would do everything I could to keep out the taxpayer funding of abortion.

[...]

George: Because, as I say, some people believe that a constitutional amendment would be needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and short of that, the best we can do is put some limitations around the edges and prohibit federal funding, as we have done in the Hyde amendment. But my question goes to a matter of constitutional principle concerning the respective rules of the government. President Lincoln famously said in his first inaugural address that if we permit the policy of the government on matters that are essential to the whole people to be determined simply by the Supreme Court, we will have abdicated our responsibility, handed over self-government to that eminent tribunal, as Lincoln said. So, given the clear mandate of the 14th Amendment, empowering Congress to enforce the guarantee of equal protection, shouldn’t Congress act on that now?

Bachmann: Yes, I believe that they should. And it is not only Abraham Lincoln that subscribed to that view. Thomas Jefferson did as well … because Thomas Jefferson understood that, of the three branches of government, the most important was the United States Congress, consisting of the House and the Senate. The second would be the executive, and the third, and a far distance third, was considered the Supreme Court of the United States. If the Supreme Court, by a plurality of the justices, may impose their own personal morality on the rest of the nation, then we are quite literally being ruled by those individuals, as opposed to giving our consent to the people’s representatives.
[...]

George: And if it meant a confrontation with the Supreme Court, are you prepared for that?

Bachmann: Most assuredly.

Romney, who originally had made headlines for refusing to attend the Freedom Forum but then changed his mind, disagreed with Bachmann, asserting that George’s suggestion would amount to a “constitutional crisis.”

Romney: I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility to determining laws related to abortion, as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court from the bench telling America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that’s the appropriate course. … Now, is there a constitutional path to have the Congress say we’re going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or put in place our own views on abortion? That would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it’s reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That’s not something I would precipitate.

What I would look to do would be appoint people to the Supreme Court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. I believe that we must be a nation of laws.

Cain and Gingrich, like Bachmann, said they would support congressional legislation to ban abortion, while Paul sided with Romney, saying: “Violence and murder should be dealt with by the states.”

Watch Bachmann and Romney diverge on abortion and Congress’ power in a video mash-up produced by the Huffington Post:

The filing by Common Cause Minnesota alleges that the Minnesota Family Council — and in particular its lobbyist, Tom Prichard — failed to report lobbying expenses related to several ads. Since the ad urged the public and legislators to act on legislation, in this case a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it constitutes lobbying, the group argues in the complaint. The ads in question include references to an actual bill, SF120, and were created and distributed in partnership with NOM.

Here’s the ad:

The complaint also addresses three other ads by MFC and NOM, charging that each of the ads, two for radio and one for television, constituted lobbying, yet went unreported:

First, it tells the public to contact DFL lawmakers. The ad states: “Most DFL lawmakers don’t want you to have a say. When they ask for your support, ask them if they will guarantee your right to vote on marriage.” Second, it identified a legislator who could vote on the legislation by specifically mentioning a state representative at the time, Rep. Kelliher. It also included the name of the current governor.

One such ad also featured the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., asserting that he would have wanted a statewide vote on gay marriage.

The complaint, which cites Minnesota Independent’s reporting on the ads throughout the election cycle, asks for a penalty of $3,000.

The filing also notes that Prichard and MFC have been dinged for the same thing in the past: “Considering the nature of the scheme and the fact that this is the second time that Mr. Prichard has violated this very statute by failing to disclose lobbyist expenditures associated with urging public action to influence legislative action, we believe that there is clear intent to violate the statute. Mr. Prichard cannot claim that he did not know about the reporting requirements.”

Common Cause also filed a second complaint that alleges that NOM failed to register as a lobbying group in the state.

“[T]he group should have registered with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Board as a principal lobbyist,” the complaint states. “The Campaign Finance Disclosure Board (‘CFDB’) website clearly states that groups that intend to influence legislative action must register with the CFDB.”

It continues:

On May 18, 2010, the Minnesota Independent ran a story on how the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council were coordinating a $200,000 media buy in Minnesota to oppose legislation to “redefine marriage.” In a press release, the National Organization for Marriage “called on elected officials to let the people vote on this critical issue.” This makes it clear that their intent was to influence legislative action.

Common Cause is seeking specific penalties against NOM. It’s urging the board to fine NOM $1,000 and to conduct an audit of NOM’s financial records to ensure that the reporting requirements are satisfied.

The campaign finance board has accepted Minnesota Common Cause’s complaint and is in the process of investigating.

“Minnesota’s lobbyist disclosure laws are designed to shine some sunlight on how special interests attempt to influence decisions at the capitol,” Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota, said in a statement. “Both organizations have attempted to operate in the shadows by failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars spent influencing legislators at the capitol.”

The Minnesota Independent raised questions about NOM’s and MFC’s activities in Minnesota last fall, in particular a mailer that attacked openly gay Republican Sen. Paul Koering. He lost reelection in 2010.

Read Common Cause’s complaint alleging failure to register as a lobbyist:

NOM_complaint_FINAL

Read Common Cause’s complaint alleging failure to disclose expenditures:

MFC complaint FINAL2

“The ruling reached by the Roberts’ Court [sic] overturned decades of legal precedent by allowing corporations unfettered spending in our political campaigns,” Edwards said in a statement. “Another law will not rectify this disastrous decision.  A Constitutional Amendment is necessary to undo what this Court has done.”

It’s not only House leaders eyeing that option. Testifying before the Senate Rules Committee this morning, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) also promoted that idea.

“We need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals,” Kerry said.

For campaign finance reform supporters, it’s exactly the right move.

“The court’s overreach is so shocking, and the certain consequences so damaging, that we must have a constitutional corrective,” Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. ”The First Amendment was never intended to protect the likes of ExxonMobil, Pfizer or Goldman Sachs, nor should it.”

Peg Luksik (pegluksik.com), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)(WDCpix) and Pat Toomey (Flickr: Fred Thompson)

It’s a familiar story that makes Pennsylvania conservative activists turn red when they tell it. Every six years, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) runs for re-election and he must quiet a Republican base angry with some of his moderate votes. Every six years, Specter briefly veers to the right to placate them. Every six years, he wins — and promptly goes back to being the Arlen Specter who stubbornly votes against their interests.

“This has happened before,” said Michael Geer, the president of the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute. “The closer to the election we get, the greater his tendency to tack in more conservative direction.”

Image by: Matt Mahurin

As conservatives prepare to take down Specter in the 2010 Republican primary, some high-level activists are trying to aid the senator by giving him cover on two issues that, they hope, will mollify the base. This week, Specter has introduced — for the second time — legislation that would replace the current tax code with a flat-rate income tax. Behind the scenes, Specter is being lobbied to support a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of parents to homeschool their children. The goal is to prove to conservatives that Specter, if re-elected, will be on their side. Pennsylvania’s conservatives, with Specter in their sights, are not yet buying it.

“This is pure political posturing,” said Peg Luksik, the conservative activist who is, at the moment, the only declared Republican candidate against Specter. “This is a sop to conservatives because he’s afraid of losing his seat.”

The flat tax bill, which Specter first introduced in 2007 and is not expected to pass in this Senate, either, has not taken Specter’s opponents by surprise. But the Parental Rights Amendment and the launch of its grassroots lobbying arm at ParentalRights.org is something new. The amendment, sponsored in the House by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and in the Senate by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), is a response to legal developments that have rattled the homeschool movement, if little noticed outside of it. The most recent precedent on homeschooling, the 2000 Supreme Court decision Troxel v. Granville, defended the right of parents to visit their child but did not find a fundamental right of a parent over a child’s education. Homeschool activists read, in the decision, a need to enumerate parents’ rights. The amendment would rewrite the Constitution to make a “fundamental right” out of “the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

Outside of Congress, the amendment is backed by a small coalition of conservatives who have appealed to Specter to support it. The purpose is not only to move the bill forward by putting a more moderate spokesman than DeMint forward, but to build support for Specter with homeschoolers. Specter’s office, contacted for this story, did not say whether or not he would support the bill.

“One of the challenges that the traditional values people have is that they’re seen as trying to impose their values on other people,” said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an early supporter of ParentalRights.org.

The amendment, Norquist said, is a politically popular way for homeschool activists to get something they want, while exposing the government-knows-best agenda that opponents of homeschooling are usually able to conceal. It might also be a way of bucking up Specter, whose chief of staff, Scott Hoeflich, gave Norquist a head’s up when Specter decided to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would have made it easier for workers to unionize. “Why would I want to go after Arlen Specter,” Norquist asked, “when he just saved us on the single most important vote in this Congress?”

The heaviest hitter trying to get Specter on board with the Parental Rights Amendment might be Mike Farris, the group’s president, and the founder and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, a conservative university in Virginia. Farris has spoken to Specter’s office about the amendment, though it wasn’t clear this week whether Specter was warm to the idea. “If Sen. Specter joined our efforts it would be an enormous help,” said Farris on Wednesday. “We would love his help.”

Specter’s conservative critics — a group that includes as much as 70 percent of the Pennsylvania Republican electorate — are wary of the senator’s efforts to court them in the run-up to next year’s election. “Generally speaking,” said Mike Geer. “Sen. Specter has not been very good on school choice issues.” But Geer wasn’t entirely dismissive of Specter. “We hope that every day is a new day.”

Conservatives who oppose Specter are cool to the possible impact of a Parental Rights Amendment endorsement not just because of his pattern of moving right in election years, but because they don’t think the amendment has much of a chance in the 111th Congress. “We’re having an awful time of getting Democrats on board,” Hoekstra said on Wednesday. “I’m getting told, ‘Pete, I don’t do constitutional amendments. Pete, I support the idea but I don’t want to get out in front on it. I think that the Democratic leadership is putting a lot of pressure on the party not to do anything.” Hoekstra had not talked to Specter about the amendment, but added that it would “be awesome if he got on board.”

Allies of both of Specter’s likely primary challengers, Luksik and Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, dismissed any effect the act could have on Specter’s re-election hopes. “If Arlen were to sponsor a parental rights bill,” said Ted Meehan, a Toomey ally who will work for the eventual Senate campaign, “would it discourage [Vice President Joseph] Biden and [Gov. Ed] Rendell (D-Pa.) to discourage him from becoming a Democrat? No. They love the guy, and this isn’t going anywhere.”