Charles G. and David H Koch are the CEO and Executive Vice President respectively and owners of 84% of Koch Industries, a conglomerate that is involved in manufacturing, petroleum refining and distribution, chemicals, minerals, fertilizer, paper, polymers, ranching, finance, and a host of other enterprises. With an annual income of 115 billion dollars and a payroll of 70,000 (including 20,000 international in 59 countries), Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in the United States.
Charles and David Koch are actively pro-American, contributing money generously to conservative candidates and to organizations that combat socialistic schemes like government health control and so-called "global warming" legislation and regulation. Harry Reid and company would desperately like to shut down, or at least curtail, the ability of the Kochs and others like them to affect the outcome of these socialistic schemes.
In 1976 in Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act that limited amounts of campaign contributions. The Court's logic was that campaign contributions are a form of speech, and that, "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."
So Congressional Democrats cannot legislate against the Kochs' right to speak with their money. What to-do? What to do?
The obvious ploy would be to amend the Constitution to make it constitutional for Congress to restrict financial freedom of speech. Hence Senate Joint Resolution 19 (SJ Res 19) and House Joint Resolution 20 (HJ Res 20), which would do just that.
Section 1 of SJ Res 19, introduced in June 2013 by Senator Udall of New Mexico reads as follows:
Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral process, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on –
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office, and
(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Section 2 of this proposed amendment to the Constitution would extend the same power to restrict free speech to the States.
The entire resolution can be read here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sjres19is/pdf/BILLS-113sjres19is.pdf
I don't believe they can get three fourths of the States to approve such a Constitutional amendment. But then I didn't believe Judge Roberts could be blackmailed to approve Obamacare either.
You can find your Senators here http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm