Senate Democrats approve amendment to eliminate free speech

[The Rabbi]

Senate Dems Are One Step Closer to Amending the Constitution in a Way That Has First Amendment Advocates Worried | TheBlaze.com

Keep in mind this is still just coming out of the Judiciary committee and not a floor vote yet, but the fact that they are seriously considering an amendment to make the First amendment's free speech cause irrelevant is disturbing.

You're a liar.

Is that consistent with your Christian faith.

You're a dumbshit.
That is consistent with your low IQ.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the text of the proposed amendment
Udall Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance

a pertinent part

SECTION 3.
Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

the sole purpose of the amendment is to reform campaign finance.

Thank you for the link, it always help to read the source document instead of repeating what someone else says it does and then feeds you talking points on what it means.




*****************************


This amendment would be showboating and would have no impact on "campaign spending".


Why?


Because it provides Congress and the States the power to limit contributions to candidates.


Unlimited spending on "issues" wouldn't be impacted. So you have two candidates one runs on a platform of - I don't know - illegal immigration (pick your side Dream Act or Wall Building). Opposition to the candidate can run all the "issue" adds they want. When you have candidates on opposite sides of an issue, issue adds are developed and targeted to support a candidate without mentioning the candidates name.



>>>>

 

[Little-Acorn]

Not surprising.

From the linked article:
-------------------------------------------------------
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced legislation to amend the Constitution so Congress can regulate campaign spending, a change many Republicans say would alter the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The committee approved a resolution from Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would change the Constitution allowing Congress to pass laws that limit campaign spending by companies and other entities. Committee passage could mean the Senate considers it on the floor in the coming weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. has said the Senate would vote on a resolution amending the Constitution on campaign spending. Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved that resolution. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Udall’s proposal is a reaction to two recent Supreme Court decisions that Democrats say allow companies to spend freely on campaigns and drown out the speech of average citizens. One of these cases is Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which prohibits the government from limiting how companies and other groups spend money on campaigns.

The other is McCutcheon v. FEC, which ends aggregate limits what people can contribute overall during a campaign cycle, although it keeps in place limits on how much can be given to an individual candidate or a political group.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said amending the Constitution is needed to fix the Supreme Court’s “flawed” decisions.
----------------------------------------------------

Socialists in general, and the Democrats in particular, have never been able to handle competition. Mostly because the people they want to force into their schemes, don't want to be forced into those schemes.

This is just another attempt to force them. Anyone who might tell them the schemes aren't all they're cracked up to be, must be shut down. Arguing against them won't work, since the Dems always lose the arguments.

It won't get far. Any Constitutional amendment, if it even gets out of Congress, must be approved by 3/4 of the states, which will never happen.

The Framers deliberately made the modification of the Constitution, as far from the seat of central government as possible. Congress can only propose, and needs 2/3 majorities even to do that. And the President has no say whatsoever.

Democrats have convinced themselves that money is eeevil, at least when it comes to conservatives using it to spread their ideas. "Everybody they know" (i.e. other Democrats) agrees with them.

Convincing sensible people, though, will be a very different task. And in this case, an impossible one.

 

[Siete]

Just more political posturing, they know it will never get the congressional votes needed to submit it to the States. They just want to point to republicans keeping big money in politics all the while taking big money for their own campaigns. Unfortunately there are enough low information voters that might actually believe their ploy.

be it truth or fiction, keeping the right in a feeding frenzy is a must... feed on.

 

[bendog]

Not surprising.

From the linked article:
-------------------------------------------------------
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced legislation to amend the Constitution so Congress can regulate campaign spending, a change many Republicans say would alter the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The committee approved a resolution from Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would change the Constitution allowing Congress to pass laws that limit campaign spending by companies and other entities. Committee passage could mean the Senate considers it on the floor in the coming weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. has said the Senate would vote on a resolution amending the Constitution on campaign spending. Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved that resolution. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Udall’s proposal is a reaction to two recent Supreme Court decisions that Democrats say allow companies to spend freely on campaigns and drown out the speech of average citizens. One of these cases is Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which prohibits the government from limiting how companies and other groups spend money on campaigns.

The other is McCutcheon v. FEC, which ends aggregate limits what people can contribute overall during a campaign cycle, although it keeps in place limits on how much can be given to an individual candidate or a political group.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said amending the Constitution is needed to fix the Supreme Court’s “flawed” decisions.
----------------------------------------------------

Socialists in general, and the Democrats in particular, have never been able to handle competition. Mostly because the people they want to force into their schemes, don't want to be forced into those schemes.

This is just another attempt to force them. Anyone who might tell them the schemes aren't all they're cracked up to be, must be shut down. Arguing against them won't work, since the Dems always lose the arguments.

It won't get far. Any Constitutional amendment, if it even gets out of Congress, must be approved by 3/4 of the states, which will never happen.

The Framers deliberately made the modification of the Constitution, as far from the seat of central government as possible. Congress can only propose, and needs 2/3 majorities even to do that. And the President has no say whatsoever.

Democrats have convinced themselves that money is eeevil, at least when it comes to conservatives using it to spread their ideas. "Everybody they know" (i.e. other Democrats) agrees with them.

Convincing sensible people, though, will be a very different task. And in this case, an impossible one.

Democrats and RINOs. GRRRRRRRRRR, they make me mad.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Unfortunately there are enough low information voters that might actually believe their ploy.

No, there aren't.

Democrat desperation has outpaced their political practicality here. They've forgotten how seriously their support has eroded in the last year.

 

[bendog]

Unfortunately there are enough low information voters that might actually believe their ploy.

No, there aren't.

Democrat desperation has outpaced their political practicality here.

Yes the GOP should run on the necessity of electing a gop potus to make sure they have enough votes in the Sup Ct to keep Citizens United the law of the land. That will be extremely popular and ensure success.

 

[deaddogseye]

Just more political posturing, they know it will never get the congressional votes needed to submit it to the States. They just want to point to republicans keeping big money in politics all the while taking big money for their own campaigns. Unfortunately there are enough low information voters that might actually believe their ploy.

you are right except for the last part. The fact is that this is an inside DC Democrat obsession -- the general public doesnt care about this at all.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Senate Dems Are One Step Closer to Amending the Constitution in a Way That Has First Amendment Advocates Worried | TheBlaze.com

Keep in mind this is still just coming out of the Judiciary committee and not a floor vote yet, but the fact that they are seriously considering an amendment to make the First amendment's free speech cause irrelevant is disturbing.

The bottom line here is that it would not change or regulate the First Amendment and Free Speech as Republicans are saying by throwing in a red herring just to try to scare the citizens. No, in effect, it would help to curb the out of control spending that now ensues after the Supreme Court gave the green light on spending as much as one wants on elections. In effect, if any finger pointing is to be done it should be at the U.S. Supreme Court that changed this from the way it was. What the Democrats are proposing is to stop this madness and disadvantage that the Middle Class, the poor, and minorities now have on electing their government officials when large corporations would spend millions more over the common folks in order to get their cronies elected. No candidate running for public office should be able to BUY an election based on how much money they have and/or can afford to spend on it. That has to clearly STOP! The public clearly needs to Support this new legislation as it is in their best interest.

 

[bendog]

Just more political posturing, they know it will never get the congressional votes needed to submit it to the States. They just want to point to republicans keeping big money in politics all the while taking big money for their own campaigns. Unfortunately there are enough low information voters that might actually believe their ploy.

you are right except for the last part. The fact is that this is an inside DC Democrat obsession -- the general public doesnt care about this at all.

Wide Majorities Losing Faith In John Roberts' Supreme Court, Want Term Limits

 

[Little-Acorn]

From the actual bill the Senate is considering:

-------------------------------------
1. To advance the fundamental principle
of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity
of the legislative and electoral processes.....

2. To advance the fundamental principle
of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity
of the legislative and electoral processes.......
--------------------------------------------

Politicians attempting power grabs always put gushing praise for their own schemes, directly into the laws they try to pass to force people into them.

Notice the original Constitution has none.

Check out the Chinese "constitution" some time. Fully half of it, isn't commands or laws at all, but consists of long screeds telling everyone how wonderful it is that all these things are now law.

If the laws were actually wonderful, of course, the country's subjects wouldn't need to be told over and over.

True also for this bill.

 

[OKTexas]

Just more political posturing, they know it will never get the congressional votes needed to submit it to the States. They just want to point to republicans keeping big money in politics all the while taking big money for their own campaigns. Unfortunately there are enough low information voters that might actually believe their ploy.

be it truth or fiction, keeping the right in a feeding frenzy is a must... feed on.

I sure hope so, keep the right motivated all the way through Nov., then bye bye commiecrats.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The funniest part, from the text of the bill the Senate is considering:

-----------------------------------------
3. Nothing in this article shall be con-
strued to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom
of the press.
-----------------------------------------

Of course not. They intend to abridge the freedom of speech.

Freedom of the press isn't until the next amendment. Or maybe the one after that. (yawn)

 

[ogibillm]

Just more political posturing, they know it will never get the congressional votes needed to submit it to the States. They just want to point to republicans keeping big money in politics all the while taking big money for their own campaigns. Unfortunately there are enough low information voters that might actually believe their ploy.

be it truth or fiction, keeping the right in a feeding frenzy is a must... feed on.

I sure hope so, keep the right motivated all the way through Nov., then bye bye commiecrats.

always a double-edged sword, issues like these.

democrats get to claim republicans want big money controlling politics. republicans get to claim democrats are against the first amendment.

it'll work for both bases, but in this case i'd wager that more hay can be made out of republicans and large campaign contributions than can be made out of democrats being anti-first amendment.

 

[ogibillm]

The funniest part, from the text of the bill the Senate is considering:

-----------------------------------------
3. Nothing in this article shall be con-
strued to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom
of the press.
-----------------------------------------

Of course not. They intend to abridge the freedom of speech.

Freedom of the press isn't until the next amendment. Or maybe the one after that. (yawn)

i wanted to thank you for your clear and obvious statement showing your own ignorance.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The funniest part, from the text of the bill the Senate is considering:

-----------------------------------------
3. Nothing in this article shall be con-
strued to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom
of the press.
-----------------------------------------

Of course not. They intend to abridge the freedom of speech.

Freedom of the press isn't until the next amendment. Or maybe the one after that. (yawn)

Freedom of the press is vital to the Democrat socialists, of course. They need it to keep telling people how wonderful they are.

Not until the press becomes objective again, will they consider an amendment regulating the press. When CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS start pointing out that none of the Democrats' schemes have EVER achieved the goals they were advertised to achieve, will the Senate begin to consider regulating the amount of the press's budget that goes for talking about candidates and political issues.

Probably won't happen for a long time, though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are Dems really so mindless that they fear exposure to an ad will cause them to vote Republican?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are Dems really so mindless that they fear exposure to an ad will cause them to vote Republican?

They fear that exposure to an ad will cause the people to vote Republican.

With good reason.

Why else would they be so afraid of it?

 

[ogibillm]

Are Dems really so mindless that they fear exposure to an ad will cause them to vote Republican?

are you so mindless to believe that money doesn't influence elections?

 

[martybegan]

the text of the proposed amendment
Udall Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance

a pertinent part


the sole purpose of the amendment is to reform campaign finance.

Its purpose is to shut up whoever disagrees with whoever is in power, or who is favored by the press, or who is favored by the bureaucracy.

So corporations would be muzzled, businesses would be muzzled, but I'm sure the Obama butt buddy unions, special interest groups, and the public sector unions would be given a pass.

or, and i know this is truly crazy, we'd have campaign finance reform just like we did before citizens united.

Alot of that was unconstitutional.