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.
