The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment
 

The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

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.


Proponents of the amendment also say it would just "repeal Citizens United" or "regulate big money in politics." That is nonsense. Nothing in the amendment is limited to corporations, or to nefarious billionaires. It gives Congress power to regulate—and ban—speech by everybody.

Indeed, the text of the amendment obliquely acknowledges that Americans' free-speech rights would be eliminated: It says "[n]othing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press." Thus, the New York Times is protected from congressional power; individual citizens, exercising political speech, are not.

If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed constitutional:

Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing voter guides letting citizens know politicians' records on the Second Amendment.

Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.

Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money to urge their views of abortion.

Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.

Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners to vote.

Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the president.

Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore ) and radio programs—anything not deemed "the press"—that might influence upcoming elections.

One might argue, "surely bloggers would be protected." But Senate Democrats expressly excluded bloggers from protection under their proposed media-shield law, because bloggers are not "covered journalists."

One might argue, "surely movies would be exempt." But the Citizens United case—expressly maligned by President Obama during his 2010 State of the Union address—concerned the federal government trying to fine a filmmaker for distributing a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton.

One might argue, "surely books would be exempt." But the Obama administration, in the Citizens United oral argument, explicitly argued that the federal government could ban books that contained political speech.

The contemplated amendment is simply wrong. No politician should be immune from criticism. Congress has too much power already—it should never have the power to silence citizens.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/ted-c...ent-1401662112

Can you paraphrase that?

"No politician should be immune from criticism."............until it's Ted Cruz that comes under criticism and he has a sycophant Republican majority congress.

Dave

Yes I can.

Prove it.

Do you not want to know how and what is written in the laws. Stop shooting the messenger because this is important and affects all of us.

Nope.:rolleyes:

In your eyes I'm too ill-informed uneducated and incapable to write anything you can comprehend.

Hoo boy, I'm gonna go nuke me up a bag Orville's finest. ;)

The article creates a dozen or so straw men. It does not fairly or accurately analyze the scope and intent of the law.

Prove It:rolleyes:

I would love to shoot the messenger. I hate his guts. He's little more than a sack of garbage to me. But, alas, I don't believe in using guns to solve problems. So, it isn't going to happen.:(

Dave

That's good! you shocked me at first, all I could think of is that guy that threatened Boehner.;)

If I really believed Cruz and his fellow Republicans would honor the apparently non-partisan way he wrote that article, I might show them some respect. But, I don't believe it for a second. So, Cruz can just.................

Dave

All you have to do is read the amendment to the Constitution of the United States yourself.

Cosponsors: S.J.Res.19 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-.../19/cosponsors

Okay, I've read it and think Cruz is more full of crap than ever. He used a whole lot of imagination in that alarmist article he wrote.


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


Besides, it requires a Constitutional Amendment. Not easy to get passed as it would have to go through a lot of states where they LOVE their big money donors.

Not going to happen.

Dave

S.J.Res. 19: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures...


...intended to affect elections.







113th CONGRESS

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

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.

Ok ok :D

contribution

They thanked him for his contribution of time and money.

He made an important contribution to the debate.<Speach?

As mayor, he made many positive contributions to the growth of the city.

a book of essays including contributions from several well-known political columnists

The money was raised by voluntary contribution.


World English Dictionary
contribution (ˌkɒntrɪˈbjuːʃən)

— n
1. the act of contributing
2. something contributed, such as money or ideas
3. an article, story, etc, contributed to a newspaper or other publication
4. insurance a portion of the total liability incumbent on each of two or more companies for a risk with respect to which all of them have issued policies
5. archaic a levy, esp towards the cost of a war



World English Dictionary
contribute (kənˈtrɪbjuːt)

— vb
1. to give (support, money, etc) for a common purpose or fund
2. to supply (ideas, opinions, etc) as part of a debate or discussion
3. ( intr ) to be partly instrumental (in) or responsible (for): drink contributed to the accident
4. to write (articles) for a publication

[C16: from Latin contribuere to collect, from tribuere to grant, bestow]

:rolleyes:

Do you want more?:rolleyes:

Like it's my opinion that Democrats want to eliminate free speech in the political process.


Just like here:mad:

Now look at the amendment again. Both section places limits on two categories.
(1)"Contribution"
(2)"Funds" IE: Money.

If they were just trying to curb big money support and influence. They would not need to put a vague word like "Contribution" within its own written law. The meaning has interpretation and most show effort and the sharing of idea. Speach and an indaviduals effort to suport something.

Quite simply: corporations are NOT people, amd money id NOT speech or does yours talk to you?

What is most important in bullshit identification is exposure of hypocrite messengers like you. Weeding out hypocrisy is the first step in identifying what is important and what affects all of us and...definitely more than anything else.

WTF do you care?

See below...

There is a reason for limiting speech. The most dangerous type of person to an organization, e.g. a nation, is an influential numbnut. A good system limits how big of a mess they can make. It does so in part by limiting his communication bandwidth.

If corporations are people just try electing one to public office. Or in Ddelaware I can create an unlimited corporation that can go on as long as it is viable. I can also create a limited corporation that has a twenty year lifespan If I create a human life and kill it at age twenty I will go to jail.

And if someone can show me a talking 5,10, 20 or 100 dollar bill the I will give in.

Anything else is simply an effort on the part of monied interests to buy elections and stick a big sign in the middle of the country that says;

FOR SALE

Corporations, :confused:

Please do show me that reference in the amendment.
Even after I show you that "Contrabution" is not "Money" your mind is a wash. The lefty brainwashing of the big bad corporations and they're evil money.

Did YOU read the amendment?

The proposed amendment refers to the size of political contributions.

That would be MONEY, Dan. And who has more money than the rest of us?

Corporations and wealthy oligarchs, that's who. That's what the whole thing is about.

If it came down to an amendment vote, I WOULD SUPPORT IT. I HATE "CITIZENS UNITED".

But, doubt that would ever happen.

Dave

What makes me mad about this ruling is it does not go far enough. I want to Koch brothers to write ME a check for my vote. It would be more efficient and honest that this campaign bullshit and I'd get something out of it.

If Ted Cruz wrote it then it's probably more of the same self serving Bullshit he's used to justify the 24 billion dollar loss of commerce his shutdown cost the country.
Funny that you don't trust representative government but have no problem trusting unregulated for-profit commercial interests.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

(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.

No need to state the law twice if contrabution was only limited to money.

Dave that commet you just made lacks any valid contribution to this thread.

The greater the resources an organization or even an individual has at their disposal the more air time, commercial time, etc, they can BUY, thus unduly influencing elections.

This is why our election process has turned into an absolutely idiotic circus of misinformation and outrageous claims. Because under Citizens United, nobody can hold slanderers and "Carnival Barkers" of any stripe accountable. They have far more resources to spew their nonsense with and don't have to back up any of their claims, ever. It has always been this way to some degree, but since "Citizens United" we have thrown gasoline on the fire.

Dave

Under Citizens United----MONEY IS SPEECH. The more a whackjob billionaire, a labor union or a large corporation spends----the bigger their megaphone.

Get it, now?

Dave

Funny thing about laws if all are against the law then one can pick and chose who they want to prosecute.

Dave you better put your money where your mouth is.


Time is money.

Funny thing about this law is you can buy any election you want, you just can't pay the voter directly.

I appreciate you contributing your opinion on this topic.

Funny thing about freedom of speech and the freedom to vote. In the end it's the responsibility of the individual.