The US Constitution states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;…” clearly placing election jurisdiction in the purview of of the respective state legislature.
Additionally, inasmuch as the Constitution is silent on the subject of “campaign contributions”, the tenth amendment to the US Constitution; which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“, places that issue in the purview of the states as well.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION is a court case. The decision in that case is not law; nor does it serve to establish law; nor is it binding upon anyone other than the parties to that litigation.
Inasmuch as the US Supreme court is the final appeal the decision cannot be overturned; except if congress is petitioned, under the first amendment to intervene; such intervention still bound by the scope of the instant case. However it is doubtful that anyone in congress would have any idea how to address such a petition.
While the court was correct in finding that the FEC restrictions were unconstitutional, its credence was belied by its convoluted reasoning. Clearly the FEC restrictions contravened states’ tenth amendment right; and only served to accommodate the political games congress plays when it should be working.
“All” legislative power is vested in congress by the Constitution. Courts are constrained by the Constitution to decide cases in accordance with the law, as it exists; regardless of the courts opinion of the law. Except as provided in The Voting Rights Act, courts are not empowered to consider the “intent” or effect of a law in deciding a case. If a court finds the application of a state law repugnant to the Constitution, it may disregard the law in the instant case; but the law remains valid unless and until acted upon by the respective legislature.
Neither the US Constitution nor The Judiciary Act of 1789 empower any court to alter or invalidate duly enacted legislation as a remedy in any case. In the matter of the FEC restrictions, states can file suit based on contravention of their expressed constitutional right; and the courts can award exorbitant monetary judgements so that the FEC might be persuaded to abandon the restrictions.
In all likelihood Schiff is just showboating; because surely he realizes he is more likely to be elected President of the United States than to get two thirds of both houses to support his proposed amendment; and quite likely he would die of old age before three fourths of the states ratified it.
However, the point is that Schiff and all of his congressional colleagues are more concerned with winning elections than doing their jobs. All 535 of them are corrupted by money and ambition. They all solicit donations and hold fund raising events. Schiff just seeks to constrain the more successful fund raisers; which speaks more to the corrupt character of the man.