Democrat Attack on Free Speech with Proposed New Amendment?

[JimBowie1958]

Sen. Cruz Op-ed: The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry.

We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech.

But just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.

You read that correctly. Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposed amendment to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech. The text of the amendment says that Congress could regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." The amendment places no limitations whatsoever on Congress's new power.

Two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. First, "money is not speech." And second, "corporations have no free speech rights."

Neither contention bears even minimal scrutiny. Speech is more than just standing on a soap box yelling on a street corner. For centuries the Supreme Court has rightly concluded that free speech includes writing and distributing pamphlets, putting up billboards, displaying yard signs, launching a website, and running radio and television ads. Every one of those activities requires money. Distributing the Federalist Papers or Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" required money. If you can prohibit spending money, you can prohibit virtually any form of effective speech.

We need to strip corporations of their 'free speech rights' which should only be the right of living breathing biological persons. Any law to put such a restriction in place should only authorize Congress to regulate corporations, not just anyone.

Udall Introduces Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance Reform | Tom Udall | Senator for New Mexico

The proposed constitutional amendment:

- Restores authority to the American people, through Congress and the states, to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns

- Allows states to regulate campaign spending at their level;

- Includes the authority to regulate and limit independent expenditures, like those from Super PACs;

- Would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, but instead would allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges;

- Expressly provides that any regulation authorized under the amendment cannot limit the freedom of the press.

This proposed amendment is ripe for abuse and does not target corporate donations nearly enough. After this Presidents incompetence and power mongering, I wouldn't trust the current crop of professional whores/politicians with the slightest ambiguity in any law that would limit free speech. PERIOD.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Limit Political Speech

Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) recently advised that the Senate should pass this amendment because “the flood of special interest money…is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced.”[19] Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) argued, “It’s time for Congress to act—to reassert its role and protect the right of all Americans…without the risk of [laws] being eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court.”[20] Senator Schumer made it very clear in 2010 when he introduced the unsuccessful DISCLOSE Act, which was intended to overturn the Citizens United decision, that his intent was in fact to deter political speech and involvement in the political process by disfavored actors: “The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.”[21]

Senator Udall introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution and grant Congress and the states the power to “regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents” including limits on:

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal [and State] office; and

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.[22]

Thus, this amendment would give Congress the power not only to limit contributions to candidates, but also to limit the amount that the candidates could spend on an election campaign. Further, it would give Congress the authority to limit the amount that any individual, association, union, or corporation (both for-profit and nonprofit) could spend independently in support of or in opposition to a particular candidate.

The Supreme Court ruled in Buckley that such a $1,000 limit on independent expenditures that Congress tried to impose was unconstitutional because it would prohibit individuals and all other groups (with certain exceptions including the owners of “institutional press facilities&#8221 “from fully voicing their views relative to a clearly identified candidate.”[23] Such a limit heavily burdened “core First Amendment expression,” which includes the right to “speak one’s mind” and engage in “vigorous advocacy.”[24]

In a Senate hearing on the influence of so-called dark money in elections, retired Justice John Paul Stevens testified that campaign finance laws “should create a level playing field.”[25] He also claimed that “while money is used to finance speech, money is not speech.” But allowing Congress the power to limit spending by candidates on political campaigns or by anyone else in support of or opposition to candidates would protect incumbents and make challenging and defeating a sitting Member of Congress even more difficult than it already is.

Supporters of this amendment claim that restricting the amount of money that may be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, but that is the equivalent of saying that limiting the amount of newsprint a newspaper may buy does not limit the newspaper’s speech. Coincidentally, the proposed constitutional amendment has one glaring exception: It would not apply to the press. Thus, The New York Times and MSNBC could continue to spend as much money, newsprint, and airtime as they want supporting their preferred candidates (or attacking those they oppose), but individuals, associations, and non-media corporations would be strictly limited in their political speech. This is certainly no way to “level the playing field.” Instead, this would allow Members of Congress to tie the hands of candidates and ordinary Americans who are trying to unseat them.

 

[hipeter924]

Good. Hopefully there are more amendments like this on the way, then Jim will be more entertaining. What FEMA camp do you want to attend, when this 'liberal dictatorship' of yours comes to pass? Obama is getting the ACA all ready, and soon he will conquer the world. Muhahahaha!

 

[Darkwind]

So, any organization that has more than one member should not be allowed to voice their opinion, or collect signatures to petition government to redress a grievance. Unions should not be allowed to have a voice in politics, neither should groups like the NAACP, Planned Parenthood and other organizations that depend upon government largess to survive.

 

[Darkwind]

And of course, if we allow Congress to limit who and how much can be spent, they can then more easily control who will be elected (not who can run, but who will win).....yeah..is it any real wonder that Harry Reid is all in for this?

 

[peach174]

It needs a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House.
It ain't gonna happen.

This is all about shutting up the Koch Brothers which the left can't stand.
The left has been going nuts on the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United.
How dare Freedom ring.
The Dems have been outspending the Repubs for many, many years. Now that the money going for Repubs, suddenly it's not a good thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech that is untainted by corporate and union cash.

Citizens United will be overturned.

 

[hadit]

Anything that increases incumbent advantage should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

 

[mamooth]

I think Jim has one of those speshul PC Constitutions that says "Money is free speech."

Most people, however, have common sense, and understand that money is not free speech. Pity that a majority of the SC lacked such common sense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So tell me who speaks for corporations?

Could it be people?

 

[martybegan]

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech that is untainted by corporate and union cash.

Citizens United will be overturned.

So those donations that were below the limit all those years are not "tainted"

Stop being naive, these donations have always gone on these past few decades, they just have been below the table.

 

[martybegan]

I think Jim has one of those speshul PC Constitutions that says "Money is free speech."

Most people, however, have common sense, and understand that money is not free speech. Pity that a majority of the SC lacked such common sense.

"Money is free speech" is one of those progressive twatwaddle statements that are made up to distort the issue at hand, because progressives have not better option.

 

[JFK_USA]

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech that is untainted by corporate and union cash.

Citizens United will be overturned.

It must or democracy will be over in America. There is absolutely no way you can have a nation of free people when the 1% control the law making process.

 

[Peach]

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech that is untainted by corporate and union cash.

Citizens United will be overturned.

It must or democracy will be over in America. There is absolutely no way you can have a nation of free people when the 1% control the law making process.

It'll have to pass the Federal Court challenges, which are a sure bet to be filed, if this even passes. I doubt it will.

 

[peach174]

I think Jim has one of those speshul PC Constitutions that says "Money is free speech."

Most people, however, have common sense, and understand that money is not free speech. Pity that a majority of the SC lacked such common sense.

It's too bad that the left was not up in arms when Dems started it years ago.
Hedge Fund managers, unions, Microsoft.
Top 10 contributors all went for Dems except one. National Assn of Realtors.
Most of these are unions.
Since when is unions people and not corporations? Both are the people.
Forbes has listed the top companies/corporations in the country. The top five of those employ over 17 million people. Total union membership in this country is in the tens of millions. Governments at all levels, collectively, employ the most people who have jobs. I would have to say that based on those who work for, or are members of, and those who are served by corporations, unions, and government, that yes all the entities are people.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g258/PatC_pics/Funny Pictures/Monday_commute.jpg

When the people themselves are well informed (and they aren't) on the issues, money does not sway their votes.
It is not about the money, it's about the people becoming well educated on the issues.
Mainstream media needs to start informing, not indoctrinating and taking sides with the Democrats.
This is what needs to be changed. Not the money.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, any organization that has more than one member should not be allowed to voice their opinion, or collect signatures to petition government to redress a grievance. Unions should not be allowed to have a voice in politics, neither should groups like the NAACP, Planned Parenthood and other organizations that depend upon government largess to survive.

I am talking about for-profit corporations, not unions, the NRA or churches, etc.

The for-profit corporations OWNED the last two presidential elections, buying it for Obama in 2008, then buying the GOP nomination for a sure loser like Romney in 2012 to protect their investment in Obama.

This needs to end before these corporations auction off everything not welded to the floor in this country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think Jim has one of those speshul PC Constitutions that says "Money is free speech."

Most people, however, have common sense, and understand that money is not free speech. Pity that a majority of the SC lacked such common sense.

I agree tat money is not free speech for for-profit corporations, dumbass.

It might help you to read what you respond to prior to responding, shit-for-brains.

 

[JimBowie1958]

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech that is untainted by corporate and union cash.

Citizens United will be overturned.

It must or democracy will be over in America. There is absolutely no way you can have a nation of free people when the 1% control the law making process.

I totally agree.

But the corporate owned media will obscure the issue into left-vrs-right and ill succeed in blocking any fix.

I am opposed to this particular bill since I see no distinction being made between people and corporations in it. I would far prefer the current situation to giving the power to arbitrarily say who is allowed to contribute and who is not to a bunch of libtard fascists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech that is untainted by corporate and union cash.

Citizens United will be overturned.

It must or democracy will be over in America. There is absolutely no way you can have a nation of free people when the 1% control the law making process.

It'll have to pass the Federal Court challenges, which are a sure bet to be filed, if this even passes. I doubt it will.

Passed amendments to the US Constitution do not have to pass court reviews, Peach.

 

[Peach]

It must or democracy will be over in America. There is absolutely no way you can have a nation of free people when the 1% control the law making process.

It'll have to pass the Federal Court challenges, which are a sure bet to be filed, if this even passes. I doubt it will.

Passed amendments to the US Constitution do not have to pass court reviews, Peach.

Enactment a Constitutional Amendment requires much more than passing the House.