Can you prove that statement?
No you cant becasue it has been LONG a democratic postion.
No it hasn't. Dems have courted unions for decades and in return they have given public sector unions sweetheart deals. It wasn't until the SCOTUS ruling that dems started complaining about money in politics. And even then most of you only complain about corporations giving money and not unions.
Campaign finance reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s
In 1986, several bills were killed in the U.S. Senate by bipartisan maneuvers which did not allow the bills to come up for a vote. The bill would impose strict controls for campaign fund raising. Later in 1988, legislative and legal setbacks on proposals designed to limiting overall campaign spending by candidates were shelved after a Republican filibuster. In addition, a constitutional amendment to override a Supreme Court decision failed to get off the ground. In 1994, Senate Democrats had more bills blocked by Republicans including a bill setting spending limits and authorizing partial public financing of congressional elections. In 1996, bipartisan legislation for voluntary spending limits which rewards those who bare soft money is killed by a Republican filibuster.[2]
In 1997, Senators McCain and Feingold sought to eliminate soft money and TV advertising expenditures but the legislation was defeated by a Republican filibuster. Several different proposals were made in 1999 by both parties. The Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 1867) proposed by Asa Hutchinson (R - Arkansas) put a bans on soft money and raised hard money limits. The Citizen Legislature & Political ACT (H.R. 1922) sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle (R - CA) would repeal all federal freedom ACT election contribution limits and expedite and expand disclosure. H.R. 417 Campaign Reform Act Shays-Meehan Bill, sponsored by Christopher Shays (R - CT) and Martin Meehan (D - MA). Would ban soft money and limit types of campaign advertising.[2]
I await you apology
Apoligize for what? These were bipartisan plans not democrat plans and the best plan was killed by both parties.
None of these bans would have blocked all contributions. They were all gimicks. they would have blocked soft money only.