Amendment to stop ‘I Bought 21 House Seats for $100 Million’

Diane Sieker photo

Michael Bloomberg credited himself as having, through his donations, changed the majority of the House of Representatives to Democrat returning Nancy Pelosi to power. He said, “They talk(ed) about 40 Democrats” needed to return the House to power in 2018, “Twenty-one of those were people they (Bloomberg’s group) spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I boug(ht)… I got them,” according to Dan Merica’s piece “Bloomberg catches himself from saying he ‘bought’ House races in 2018,” on CNN, Feb. 25, 2020. Despite the rhetoric Democrats love the money provided by the rich.

No one should be able to purchase a seat in any election, state or federal. It must never be allowed to happen again. But it will happen again if not blocked by an amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in the nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“All election funding, outside a candidate’s personal wealth, in all elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office,” according to the suggested amendment.

But Bloomberg is not alone in purchasing elections, for some time we have been reporting the influence of the moneyed elite, the billionaire club, notably George Soros and Tom Steyers, in choosing elected officers from the White House down to local races. It happens when money flows in from outside where the candidate will serve allowing those of wealth, to replace constituent influence thus effectively purchasing the representatives from outside the voting districts. If constituents have lost their power to decide their leaders, how can they pretend any longer that the nation is a democratic republic?

In 2018, Both George Soros and Tom Steyer bankrolled far left candidate Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor, hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Gillum “courted Soros’ organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings.” When they met at San Francisco, “he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run,” according to the Ingraham Angle, Aug. 29, 2018. An activity that was targeted to get Gillum elected; hence would be denied Soros and Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he spent on the midterms. Both Soros and Steyer are California, not Florida, residents.

But what about billionaires buying their own political office, even the presidency, to the tune of half a billion as Bloomberg did? Such buyout is openly known. People do not like anyone purchasing elected office if known. But when Bloomberg purchased 21 House of Representatives seats in 2018, it was hidden until he bragged about it in the Feb. 25, 2020, Democratic Party presidential debate. If it did happened again, we would suggest another constitutional amendment to limit such self-funding.

Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. It would not stop the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, so long as all monies used in such originates from voters within the district served by the candidate. The word originates is designed to stop donation transfer from outside district sources to inside donors to circumvent the amendment.

Why have citizens not stopped this practice? Because both political parties benefit from it. On the congressional level, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a threatening contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.

As seen from Bloomberg, more funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy an opponent or get a message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. Bloomberg flooded the airwaves. Candidates with the most money and publicity usually win and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote, therefore they dominate the result. In many cases more money originates from outside a voting district than within. If no candidate could receive money from outside his district, it would stop much influence peddling.

Under this amendment, the Clinton Foundation monies could not be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Under this amendment no contribution could be made to influence any contest to which the contributor could not personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only their congressman or senators – not a large group of them.

Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “handoff” their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another district. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for this candidate only, and for this election only, and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and to applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit