Democrats try to Repeal First Amendment

[UncleBeer 244]

Dude, that "free speech" stuff is soooo 200-years-ago.

Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats held a hearing on Tom Udall’s proposal to gut the First

Amendment by allowing Congress to prohibit or restrict participation in political campaigns. The Democrats like

to say that the amendment would reverse the effect of the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, but in fact it

goes much farther than that. The amendment, which is favored by Harry Reid and most Senate Democrats,

would give Congress unprecedented power to limit debate on public issues in the context of elections. You really

have to read the proposed amendment to understand how radical it is. This is the key language:

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 of ice; and

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

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

the press.

The states would be given similar powers to restrict participation in state elections.

Many observers have noted that if the Udall amendment became law, Congress could set ridiculously low

contribution and spending levels, so as to virtually guarantee the re-election of incumbents. This is true–

campaign finance “reform” has always been largely about incumbent protection. But I think the proposed

amendment is even worse than that. Given its appallingly poor draftsmanship, I don’t see any reason why

Congress couldn’t permit a high level of spending on behalf of incumbents (or no limit at all), while setting low

limits for spending on behalf of challengers, or prohibiting such contributions altogether. The Democrats’

amendment would repeal the First Amendment with respect to its most fundamental application–supporting

candidates in elections.

The ACLU, to its credit, submitted a statement opposing the amendment. It pointed out some of the outrageous

implications of the Democrats’ proposal:

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is

the 28th Amendment:

• Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming

memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for of ice;

• Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huf ington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the

League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change

denier”;

• Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to

contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens

United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in ef ect, a sham issue

communication in favor of the Democratic Party;

• A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit

speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;

• A local sherif running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian

immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and

prosecute his own detractors;

• A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using

state campaign finance restrictions; and

• Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this

amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with

Democrats).

Such examples are not only plausible, they are endless.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Not surprising or new. Sam Nunn's daughter is running here. That is here big campaign theme. She is going to be Cannon fodder.

[Leatherneck 693]

Incumbents protecting their playground.