Campaign Finance

Senate Judiciary Committee Backs Constitutional Amendment to Restrict Free Speech

|

The Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee gave its stamp of approval today to a proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively strip the First Amendment of any power to stop federal and state lawmakers from imposing campaign finance restrictions. Here's the text of S.J. Res. 19, which now moves to the full Senate for a vote:

Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, 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. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on–

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

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

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

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.".

On June 3, the ACLU sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy in opposition to the proposed amendment. According to the ACLU:

S.J. Res. 19…would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance–namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support.

As we have said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would "fundamentally 'break' the Constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations."

Were it to pass, the amendment would be the first time, save for the failed policies of Prohibition, that the Constitution has ever been amended to limit rights and freedoms.

NEXT: Millennials Want to Be Entrepreneurs; Like Business, Profit, and Competition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all

    ‘All’, of course, being defined as incumbents and their MSM allies, which is why the Citizens United movie about Hillary is to be banned, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is kosher.

  2. Constitutional amendment? Good luck with that.

  3. We will tell you what you can say, and when and how! But Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

    Yeah. right.

    TEAM BLUE, fighting for freedom of expression since…. well, sometime in the past.

    1. You just have to define “press” very specifically. Think the way the Solarians define “human” to get around the first and second laws.

      1. Yes, the idiotic interpretation of “the press” as meaning professional journalists.

        If they interpreted “the press” properly, the proposed amendment would be self-contradictory, as just about all electioneering spending is spent on press.

        1. On the other hand, having them pass this, only to have SCOTUS explicitly define press as “mass communications technology and its use”, thereby essentially gutting it, would be precious.

          1. It would be, but I don’t think that is a risk I’d like to take.

          2. But if they take the words of the Constitution seriously, don’t they have to read this amendment as amending the meaning of “press” in the 1st amendment? The words of a legal document should be understood in a way that avoids contradiction and avoids nullity, so I think if this is adopted, “press” in the Constitution must be taken as meaning the business rather than the activity or technology.

    2. so Congress can tell us when, where, how and what to speak but the NYT and rest of the lapdog media will be free to parrot the Democrat Party’s talking points without concern.

  4. The Cubs will win the World Series before this thing passes.

    1. It’s revealing mask slippage tho. Too bad the Stupid Party won’t point out the obvious issues with this.

      1. Is there really a mask anymore? I think it’s more people shutting their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, and chanting “for the children, for the children or the terrorists win!” over and over to themselves.

        1. That’s what it has always been.

        2. It’s nothing new for the left to want to silence its opponents. That’s what the entire field of social justice is all about: defining terms like “racism” and “privilege” to drown out opposition.

        3. Dude! You are all over it! The people are just-plain-lazy. Every time I ask an opinion of “the man on the street” I get (for the most part):
          1. “I don’t care”

          2. “I don’t know”

          3. “It doesn’t affect me”

          etc, etc, etc (as Yul would say).

          Pretty scary.

      2. They are both the evil party

  5. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; unless it is about using speech or the press or assembly to petition the Government.

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

    So big media corporations, the sort of big money that “should be kept out of politics” can speak at will, but smaller one shot entities get the govt boot?

    1. As I keep saying whenever relevant, the misinterpretation of “the press” to mean professional journalists and media organizations and not “any means of mass communication” is one of the worst things to happen to freedom of the press. It shouldn’t mean that journalists get special treatment. It should mean that anyone can publish and distribute anything at any time for any reason.

      1. It should be read as “printing press”

        1. It should also be read as absolute as that is all that the text permits and, if one wants to go beyond the text, one need only look to the experiences of those who insisted upon its enactment to understand that they had contemplated the objections which may be lodged as to the absolutism of the language and had rejected any such rationales supporting such objections as specious and the product of the intellectually inferior.

        2. And you should go out and get hit by a bus.

    2. the “freedom of the press” in the constitution does not refer to professional media, it refers to the printing press. In other words, the freedom of the means of producing and disseminating speech shall not be abridged. So as Zeb pointed out, their amendment is self-contradictory.

      1. What good is freedom if even the icky common people get to have it? Better to limit it to a select
        few, who will use it wisely. /sarc

        1. The Eee Pleb Neesta is only for Chiefs, and sons of Chiefs.

      2. Keep in mind that back in the day, freedom of speech and freedom of the press were all you had, there were no other means of getting your message out other than speaking or writing. No radio or TV or recordings or movies or internet. So freedom of the press meant simply the right to broadcast your message.

  7. I really just don’t know what to say except “fucking assholes”.

    1. We could add, “fuck off, slavers” to the mix!

  8. How on earth do you enforce Sections 1(2) and 2(2) without violating Section 3?

    (Yes. I know. That’s the point. And I know this has zero chance of being ratified. Still, though. How dumb do they think voters are? Wait, don’t answer that one, I don’t want to know.)

    1. It doesn’t say that it won’t infringe freedom of speech…

      1. Most spending by or in support of candidates is press, not speech.

        1. Yeah, but they’re going to say that press means the press.

    2. This is the amendment that causes the courts to interpret “the press” as professional journalists only.

      Once they’ve made leap it’s all over.

      1. If our leaders get their way, we might have to repurpose old Iron Curtain jokes to keep up our spirits. The likely consequences of this amendment brings this one to mind.

        [The government’s favorite newspaper in East Germany was Neues Deutschland.]

        Nasser, John Kennedy and Napoleon were looking downward at East Germany one day.

        Nasser remarked, “If I had the Volksarmee available I wouldn’t have lost the Six Day War”

        Kennedy said, “You know, if I had the StaSi working for me, I wouldn’t have been assassinated.”

        And Napoleon said, “If I had Neues Deutschland, nobody would ever know that I lost the Battle of Waterloo”.

    3. You’re assuming that the authors of this thing intended it to be coherent and enforceable.

      They didn’t. This is a stunt designed to gin up turnout among the progtard faithful for the midterms, in which Senate Dems know they’re likely to get creamed. It’s damage control.

  9. But … but … we were told to vote for Team Blue because it was Team Red that wanted to amend the Constitution to take away rights rather than protect them.

    the fundamental principle of political equality for all

    If the one fundamental principle is equality, then equal freedom and equal enslavement are equally acceptable.

  10. Somewhere, Tony is fapping to this. Not just a quickie, either – he’s going to stretch this one out for at least 15 minutes.

    1. Alice will probably complain that it doesn’t go far enough.

      1. + 2 cent titanium tax.

      2. Assuming they aren’t the same person, they will,probably fuck and produce Uber Commie. Or a very rebellious Alex P Keaton on steroids.

  11. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

    This should be considered a binding contract on penalty of catapult.

    1. Amending the constitution is in the constitution, so I don’t think even idiotic amendments like this violate the oath.
      The people who blatantly and knowingly propose unconstitutional laws probably ought to be catapulted.

      1. Do you really think Bitchtits honestly believes that this is in the spirit of the Constitution?

        1. Doesn’t matter. Changing the spirit of the constitution is also permitted as part of the amendment process.

        2. Not to say this isn’t awful and horrible. That’s why it’s a good thing that changing the constitution is not easy.

    2. You can’t really argue that an attempt to amend the constitution through the proper channels is a betrayal of the constitution, even if the end objective is to kick out one of the fundamental pillars of freedom in our society and make somewhere between 30% and 60% of the country second class citizens.

      A betrayal of the people and our rights? Sure. But it’s not like the people ever needed the Constitution to deal with our enemies. It just allowed us to go about it in a civilized way. If Harry Reid would prefer to leave us with nothing but the uncivilized approach to dealing with tyrants, I sincerely hope he feels the consequences very fully and very personally.

      1. he will be rotting long before it ever comes to that.

        1. That’s a safe bet, since he has been rotting intellectually for quite some time now.

  12. The GOP should retaliate by introducing an amendment to repeal the 17th.

    1. Nope sorry that would be politically stupid. This is a gift; no need to send it back re-wrapped.

    2. Or maybe by filing articles of impeachment against everyone who voted for this. See the oath of office above.

    3. I would prefer to just eliminate most of the progressives.

  13. Holy shit way to rally the wavering to Team Red, just in time for the November bloodbath! Team Blue wants to the Evil AND Stupid Team. They want it all.

    1. The sad part is, there is a sizeable portion of the electorate that will cheer this on because korporations.

      1. They’re in the tank for Team blue anyway. Most people-even sympathetic moderates-have absolutely no interest in a Constitutional change. It’s just the sort of drama that people hate especially moderates.

      2. I live in Portland, no need to tell me. It’s pretty sickening. I lived in the rural south, and I mean rural, and found more tolerance for dissenting social and political viewpoints than I have since moving to this “open-minded” and “diverse” progtopia.

        1. Come back to the rural south. We have sweet tea and moonshine.

        2. Doesn’t it make you feel like a kryptonian among humans though?

      3. The hilarious part is when they refer to “wealthy and powerful” corporations, like Citizens United. The only influence CU ever had was due to the Streisand Effect.

        Unfortunately Team Red will look, notice that this is a First Amendment issue they could really make mileage with, and decide to double down on traditional marriage and right-to-life.

    2. Since they’re the same goddamn team, I hardly see what difference it makes.

      They’ll just continue the same policies and bleed us to tyranny.

  14. I hope they realize how much campaign fodder this is.

    “The Dems think you have too much free speech and want to take some away.”

    “The Dems want to change the Bill of Rights because, really, you have too many civil rights”

    1. “Equality” is the magic word that makes depriving you of your rights palatable.

  15. S.J. Res. 19…would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance–namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support.

    Unintended…you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  16. So the Democrats have gone full fascist again, I see.

    Three cheers for tolerance!

  17. How bout…

    To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, all elected officials shall be limited to one term in office with intervening yearly votes of confidence.

    …instead?

    1. Too lenient. There should be an outgoing officeholder referendum which determines if they get paid, no salary at all, imprisoned or outright executed for their acts in office.

      1. Not good enough. For each year served in congress they must serve another in the slammer. I am thinking either Leavenworth, or one of the CA penitentiary hell holes.

  18. I’m speechless.

  19. This amendment seems intended to: define press as limited to the MSM; and to limit political speech to the two main parties.

  20. Statists for Encumbents?:

    Bennet, Harkin, Schumer, Shaheen, Whitehouse, Tester, Boxer, Coons, King, Murphy, Wyden (WYDEN?!), Franken, Klobuchar, Udall of Colorado, and Udall of New Mexico

    Surprise, the Udall family supports it. And Wyden’s not typically this bad.

    1. I would call to bitch, but it’s not like I was going to vote for the shitheel anyway.

    2. Udall of Colorado

      Well, my decision of who to vote for in the CO Senate race just got a whole lot easier. Fuck Mark Udall. Fuck him in his stupid ass.

  21. “result in a host of unintended consequences”

    No it won’t. It will result in intended consequences.

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

    The eternal question: stupid or evil?

    1. Based on the same constitutional reasoning that gave us the elastic clause, the income tax and its attendant codes, and gun control, would anyone like to guess how much you’d be permitted to spend in opposition to a seated candidate? And whether the fact that your computer uses electricity and that your electricity isn’t free would play into their decision as to whether you were allowed to post diatribes against said candidate on the Internet?

      1. Electricity moves in interstate commerce.

        1. Don’t give them ideas.

        2. Tax electrons!

  23. Since there seems to be the desire to restore pre-constitution forms of government, how did senators in imperial Rome get the news that their services were no longer required? Hooks are easily made and the Potomac IS as handy as the Tiber.

  24. Did somebody run this by Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg?

    1. Having a particularly onerous law on the books isn’t a problem when it’s only ever applied to your enemies.

  25. Didn’t Eric Cantor just lose to a guy with less money? It can be done.

    1. not the point, but thanks for reminding me… that will forever brighten my day.

  26. Just print out the pictures here for use on the future mugshots for fugitives wanted for high crimes against the United States:

    http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

  27. “Were it to pass, the amendment would be the first time, save for the failed policies of Prohibition, that the Constitution has ever been amended to limit rights and freedoms.”

    No, there’s also Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which retroactively imposed penalties – disqualification from office – on former government officials who had joined the Confederacy. This diluted the ban on ex post facto laws. And since it made no provision for a regular trial, it diluted the Sixth Amendment. And it limited the benefits of a Presidential pardon, since it reserved the right of removing these disabilities to Congress, acting by supermajority.

    1. Oh, and there’s a little thing called the 16th Amendment…

    2. I was under the impression that levying war against the US was already a crime, and a capital one at that. You can take issue with the question of secession or the ugliness of war all you want, but the leniency with which the US treated the losers in the first Civil War has practically no historical parallel (even WW2, considering that we had some non-altruistic national interest in transforming the losers into allies against the USSR)

      1. I know all this, but that doesn’t change the fact that they put an ex post facto law into the Constitution – within a year of the ratification of the 14th, Johnson had pardoned the surviving Confederates (including Samuel Mudd), a very generous gesture of course, which should have blocked any further punishment. But the 14th retroactively added an extra punishment – loss of officeholding rights. Maybe that was a good idea, but it *was* a constitutional amendment which limited rights and freedoms, contra the ACLU.

    3. Progtards should be cleansed from our borders.

  28. If Team Red were smart, they would support the amendment, since they will control the Trifecta in 2016. Trifecta plus this amendment means Team Red 4 Ever.

  29. Maybe it’s just me, but I thought the Constitution existed for the benefit of ensuring the people’s liberty, not legislating profits for politicians. Silly me. Also you’d think we would have learned our lesson on amending the Constitution purely for use as a leveraging tool with that scab on US history known as the 18th amendment. I guess we didn’t.

  30. “Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press”

    Am I the only one who reads this specific section as declaring that everything else in the 1st amendment is fair game?

    1. They think they’re exempting the New York Times, allowing it to spend as much money as it wants to promote its favored political candidates.

      Wait until they find out that they’re also allowing Fox News, the Washington Times, etc., to spend money in support of *their* candidates!

      1. As if some bazillionaire wouldn’t get the idea to just buy an online newspaper to voice his opinions.

        1. What do you call Slate?

          1. Or the MS in MSNBC?

      2. Except this would allow them to define “press”. Only the NY Times, MSNBC, and HuffPo count as the “press” now.

  31. (1) the amount of contributions to candidates … in support of, or in opposition to such candidatesto candidatesto such candidates.

    Thank you for your contribution to The NRA Foundation. Your generosity will help the NRA Foundation in its mission to Teach Freedom.

    Aren’t there like a bazillion public interest groups and PACs that would already prefer to reduce it ‘to the issue(s)’?

  32. Look, no one can argue that the Democrats have anything other that the best of intentions here. They think there is too much money in politics. Obviously, given the ability to restrict the flow of money into political speech, they’ll do so in a rigorously neutal and evenhanded fashion.

    Why, I remember back when the Democrats tried to do something about the rampant problem of voter illiteracy, and mean old SCOTUS shut them down then too. Just imagine what the country would be like today if they had the clout to pass an amendment to improve the voting process in the way they intended.

  33. “….
    (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

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

    So “the press” (whatever that is, other than the current lapdogs) is allowed to spend whatever it wishes, while us folks can kick in a buck, seventy five?

  34. These shitheads, instead of fixing the problem at the border and the massive influx of undocumented democrats, sit around all day conjuring ways to take away liberty. They are beyond worthless.

  35. So is there any way to limit the amount of bribery and cronyism in elections without running afoul of the first amendment?

    1. Yeah, but you wouldn’t like any of them.

    2. I’m glad you think the NYT shouldn’t be able to print any advertisements in its paper around election time and that you finally want to do something about the money that runs amok in the Democratic political machine.

      1. When it’s union money under consideration, we prefer to think of it as sharing.

    3. Bribery is already illegal – try enforcing the law.

      Cronyism can be turned into a millstone around the necks of candidates IF the media gives a crap…but see NJ, NY and IL govts….toothless media does naught to expose these scum (in IL and NY both TEAMS dance together in a tarentella of sleaze.

      You need more speech, not taking away our fundamental rights.

      1. In a true “free speech” campaign finance regime, there would be no disclosure requirements, so reporting wouldn’t be able to put anything around any necks. Even if it weren’t a fantasy that politicians would give up large financial advantages because of the bad press.

        There are freedoms at odds here. Democratic elections and campaigns require money. But unchecked money in campaigns is a corrupting influence. The ideal election is one in which candidates succeed or fail on their merits; when money plays the biggest role, we have a corrupt system.

        And what corruption means is that free speech is undermined anyway. One person lacks the ability to influence society through speech because another person has way more money. Lots of free speech for the latter and none for the former. Unchecked money in politics makes the first amendment nothing but a pile of words.

        1. One person lacks the ability to influence society through speech because another person has way more money.

          That’s completely wrong, unless you can show me how a bum on a street corner suddenly has more influence on society once we have campaign finance reform. Shutting up filmmakers trying to make a movie about a politician doesn’t exactly hand every poor person a megaphone.

        2. Democratic elections and campaigns require money. But unchecked money in campaigns is a corrupting influence.

          I’m glad you’ve had this realization. Clearly, we need to past strict regulations on politics and money. Therefore, I propose strict limits on how much spending and benefits politicians can promise their constituents in return for votes, and how much debt of the unborn they can rack up in order to buy votes. I mean, how can we let such rampant, material concerns tarnish and corrupt our democratic system?

          The ideal election is one in which candidates succeed or fail on their merits; when money plays the biggest role, we have a corrupt system.

          Good luck appealing to the sky gods and determining who really wins elections based on their merits (defined by the sky gods?), and which politicians money is really good, and really bad.

          1. Clearly, we need to past strict regulations on politics and money. Therefore, I propose strict limits on how much spending and benefits politicians can promise their constituents in return for votes, and how much debt of the unborn they can rack up in order to buy votes. I mean, how can we let such rampant, material concerns tarnish and corrupt our democratic system?

            Well said.

        3. Money is an inanimate object and thus incapable of corrupting anyone or anything. The problem isn’t money, the problem is people and more specifically, the type of people that seek elective office. The type of people that were the driving force behind the creation of the Bill of Rights to begin with.

        4. There are problems either way. It’s best to just let people donate what they want, but require complete transparency. Money does not equal votes. Ask Eric Cantor. However, like any product, advertising helps.

        5. Would you explain to me why Soros money is good but Kocks money is bad for Democracy ?

          Why is corporate money bad but union money good ?

          1. I certainly didn’t say that.

        6. But unchecked money in campaigns is a corrupting influence

          More accurately, money in campaigns from people you don’t like is a corrupting influence. Or should there be limits on how much public unions are able to spend supporting or opposing candidates?

          The hand wringing about money in politics isn’t about corrupting influence, it’s about the “wrong” people winning elections and being outspent used as the excuse why shitty Democratic candidates lost.

    4. So is there any way to limit the amount of bribery and cronyism in elections without running afoul of the first amendment?

      Weedwhack 90% of federal regulations and agencies and the government wouldn’t have enough influence to be bribed or sucked up to.

      1. Oh, so enact your entire ideological agenda. Who would have guessed!

        1. Suck a DICK Tony, please!

          And I mean you should do that INSTEAD of loitering here.

    5. So is there any way to limit the amount of bribery and cronyism in elections without running afoul of the first amendment?

      Bribery is already illegal. Mysteriously, the prosecutors who either are politicians with ambitions, or who are hired by politicians, never seem to find any bribery. Its weird.

      Cronyism is an eradicable feature of the big, intrusive government that you love. The solution, and its only a partial one, is to make government smaller, weaker, and poorer.

    6. 1. Increase the number of representatives dramatically, by a factor of 12 or so. Select them at random from the electorate, so they are actually statistically representative of their constituents. The increase in number should mitigate the crazies and halfwits that find their way in.
      2. Repeal the 17th amendment. Hey, it was a nice idea. But money or no, Senators are too distant from the giant impersonal blob of humanity called their constituency to ever favor over the flesh and blood humans they meet (ie, lobbyists, wonks, party officials, etc.) Making Senators answerable to the psychologically managable number of state legislators would produce a better outcome in most cases (though by no means perfect — just better).
      3. Eliminate the notion of a single executive branch head, and make cabinet officials the highest level of power (Secy of State would be formal head of state). Have the Senate choose them and the House ratify them.
      4. Eliminate the IRS and the federal tax power, except as follows: that Congress can bill each state for its share of the federal budget, that share being based on the state’s representation in Congress (the corollary to “no taxation without representation” being “with great representation comes great taxation”).

      Points 1-3 taken together mean trading voting for democracy. No voting means no campaigns. No campaigns means no campaign finance.

      1. I think election by lottery for all tax payers is a great way to stand up the house of representatives. The senate should return to the state legislatures making the selection. And yes, multiply the number of congress critters by a factor of twelve. Give them a good salary and let them know that their chief job is over site of the manner in which our money is spent.

        give them a bonus when the total budget in actual $$$ is decreased

  36. What an enormous waste of time. This has ZERO chance of becoming an amendment. So many other things they could be working on instead they have to destroy the ‘boogie man’ Koch bros.

    1. They want to hold a vote so that they can attack vulnerable Senate Republicans for “voting in favor of billionaires like the Koch Brothers buying elections” (ominous music and accompanying black-and white photo of the Kochs).

    2. This is all part of setting of their excuse for losing the senate.

      When democrats win elections, it’s all a pure, virtuous expression of the will of the people.

      When they lose, it’s the Koch bros.

  37. So they can limit money spent, and ‘in kind’ contributions. Isn’t the press (whatever the fuck that means) contributing ‘in kind’ whenever they publish anything in support of or in opposition to any candidate? I smell govt approved and licensed journalists growing out of this.

    Yeah, I don’t see how anything could go wrong here.

    Everyone who signed on to this should be given lashes and a bus ticket home from D.C.

    1. “Didn’t I give you your lashes already, Congressman?”

      “Well, give me some more! I usually have to pay good money for this.”

  38. Who says the consequences are unintended?

  39. In the age when it literally has not been easier to raise money (some dude could raise one hundred effing dollars to make potato salad on Kickstarter.com for crying out loud), I don’t understand what the point of this is.

    Do you have a good idea that you think should be implemented as policy by your locality/state/country? Great, find somebody to help you raise money for it, work your ass off to raise that money and then try to convince as many people as possible that you’re idea is actually good. There are literally dozens of services out there a Google search away. That’s all Citizens United (the group) is, after all.

    Does it suck that rich people and business entities sort of have a head start? Arguably, sure. But one thing I know about life after living nearly 34 years: it sucks. Work hard to make it suck less.

  40. First, I get angry at how crazily irrational Section 3 is in light of 1 and 2. Then I remember they know that this isn’t going to pass any time soon, so this is really just about posturing. So they signal their commitment to centrally-managed equality via the amendment, while hedging themselves by claiming to still support freedom of the press.

    I imagine the way a supporter might try to make it seem not schizophrenic would be to say that “the press” means objective journalism, not opinionated electioneering. Which is not really a bright line standard at all, even though it’s probably one that many people instinctively feel for cultural and historical reasons. So Congress can prohibit private ads run by OFA or Crossroads, cannot ban election commentary by Wolf Blitzer or Major Garrett, but what about opinionated journalism from partisan pundits and editorialists?

    It’s also ludicrous to say that the leaders of a revolution birthed in large part by Common Sense, an incredibly opinionated pamphlet made by printing press, would think that opinions were not covered by freedom of the press.

  41. There’s no problem with getting this passed in the House, Senate, or getting the President to sign it.

    The issue would be the states. And that because a non-issue the moment the Federal Government began gifting them money.

    All it takes is the President softly saying “And you’ll never see another dime of federal money ever again” to get the states to sign over the rights of their people.

  42. I’ve got an idea! Since no campaign finance law ever passed has been seen to do any goddamned good, let’s repeal the lot and see what happens.

    *chirp* *chirp*

  43. And of course we can surely trust the party in power to administer the restrictions fairly and evenhandedly. Except of course unions, Liberal PACs and wealthy Hollywood people would be exempt. But other than that, restrictions would be fair and evenhanded. Oh, and environmental groups and advocate groups for women, blacks and Hispanics have the wellbeing of society in mind, so they have to be exempted. But after them, restrictions would be fair and evenhanded. Except for big donors who want to start Green Energy Companies. We’ll all benefit from that, so they have to be exempted. But after them, restrictions will be fair and evenhanded. They all promise, and have they ever lied?

    1. Have they ever STOPPED?

  44. And the Democrats just keep on proving that they truly are the Communist traitor party.

  45. Anyone who voted for this POS should be deported to Somalia buck naked.

  46. Ye Gods! I hate having to agree with the ACLU:

    “As we have said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would “fundamentally ‘break’ the Constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”
    Were it to pass, the amendment would be the first time, save for the failed policies of Prohibition, that the Constitution has ever been amended to limit rights and freedoms.”

  47. S.J. Res. 19…would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance

    Well these are democrats, unintended consequence is their superpower.

    1. Democrats

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.