Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Senate Democrats Renew Push to Gut Free Speech

Senate Democrats Renew Push to Gut Free Speech

Senate Joint Resolution 19 seeks to send political speech back into the stone age.

Congress is back in Washington, and Senate Democrats have wasted no time in bringing forward their proposal for a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the right to set limits on how much money can be raised for and spent in federal political campaigns.

Senate Joint Resolution 19 is sponsored by Tom Udall (D-NM) and has gained the vocal support of powerful Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Patrick Leahy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, and Majority Leader Harry Reid. Its three sections would drastically affect both freedom of speech and freedom of association in America:

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may
distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other
artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such
entities from spending money to influence elections.

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

In his first floor speech following the August recess, Majority Leader Reid made it clear that he’s willing to once again prevent Republicans from having a voice in the Senate—ironic considering he’s advocating the muzzling of voters via Congressional fiat:

The American people reject the notion that money gives billionaires, corporations, or special interests a greater voice in government than our own voice—the voice of voters. The American voter believes, as I do, that the Constitution doesn’t give corporations a vote and it doesn’t give them…extra votes. The only people who don’t see it that way are the Republicans here in congress. They see money as speech.

There will be no amendments. It is not a difficult issue. Either you’re for campaign spending reform or you’re not. My Republican colleagues, they can stall for time here. Were’ going to be very patient… I’m going to move this legislation forward regardless of any republican obstruction because this issue is important.

It’s interesting that Senator Reid should go to such great lengths to expose “Republican obstructionism,” considering that as far back as January of 2014 even the New York Times was forced to admit that his handling of the Senate calendar has left little room for Republicans to offer amendments to Democrat-sponsored legislation.

Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) took Reid and Durbin to task over their efforts to extend big government control over free political speech:

[t]he Majority Leader in his wisdom has decided to bring up this amendment, because he thinks the most urgent order of business is to replace the current First Amendment – which has stood the test of time for all these many years since our country’s founding – and replace it with one that empowers incumbent politicians to control who has access to the resources in order to get their message out…it’s painfully clear that the Majority Leader’s priorities have everything to do with November the 4th.

The Senate voted 79-18 to move forward with SJR 19, and the chamber is now allowed 30 hours total of debate on the resolution before it comes up for a final vote. This means that Republicans have the opportunity to speak out in favor of the First Amendment—and put pressure on Dems (especially red state Democrats in danger of losing in November) to take a stand either for or against free speech less than 60 days out from the election.

Because SJR 19 proposes a Constitutional amendment, Harry Reid needs a supermajority to sent it over to the House; most Republicans are expected to oppose the measure on a final vote, which means that the procedural strategy we’re seeing here is setting up a major loss for Reid and red state Democrats, and a huge messaging win for Republicans.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

If you think Harry Reid looks like an undertaker, it’s because he wants to bury the First Amendment.

Recall Ted Cruz at the Juciciary Committee meeting in June:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64sxcv-Jj7g&feature=player_detailpage

This should be front and center in the upcoming election. Them Dem bastards want to shut us up.

“…artificial entities created by law…”

Gee, I wonder if the Marxist Dims have Unions in mind?

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

I’ll be purchasing myself a printing press and a newsroom, as well as a broadcast license and setting up a online narrow-casting service, thank you very much.

There’s ways around everything.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Chuck Skinner. | September 8, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    In other words, their media sycophants are protected. “In-kind contributions” do not apply.

      That’s my point. If the only people who can speak are those with a press, it will be my immediate recommendation to each-and-every Candidate, 527, 501(c)(3), (4), PAC, Tea-Party group and any other type of political group to go out and purchase the smallest printing press that they can find.

      Then, designate and describe each and every employee as a “reporter.” No more press restriction, and no more limitations on “donations” because they suddenly are no longer subject to the “campaign finance laws” as members of the “press.”

      Any attempt at preventing money from being transferred could then be immediately sued against because it would “abridge the freedom of the press” in violation of the literal wording of the law.

Republicans show vote for cloture so that Democrats will have to go on record about the Amendment before the midterms.. I doubt if Reid will get 50 votes let alone the 2/3rds required to advance an amendment.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Freddie Sykes. | September 9, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Bingo, that’s it. This – and others soon to follow – are mere show votes to appease the Dem base. The GOP was supposed to vote it down so the Dems could make hay out of that, but they jinked ’em, lol.

    Both the Dems and the GOP know full well this wouldn’t get anywhere near the required 2/3s support.

    By my calculations, government and media are now about 95% kabuki theater, and rising.

Mark well the name of anyone…of any party…who votes for this on final.

They are enemies of the Constitution, and of the people.

When you say amendment, does that mean one that also requires a majority of states to agree?

    Walker Evans in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 8, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    Yes it does, but recall there is no time limit on how long that may take. This could sit around for years, getting approved by a state here, then a state there, until enough states have finally signed off to make it an amendment. All it takes is progressives to gain control of a state for one legislative cycle; if that happens enough times you can wave bye-bye to free speech for citizens!

    Sanddog in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 9, 2014 at 1:16 am

    It also requires a super majority in both the house and senate to proceed to the states. In other words, ain’t gonna happen… but everyone should be up in arms at the mere suggestion.

Udall has jumped the shark. The idea of leaving the regulation of political speech up to the Roundhouse is completely intolerable.

Simply pretty scary stuff.
Before democrats gut free speech, free speech will gut the democrats.

Infuriating how we have to fight for the liberty of useful idiots when they won’t fight for it themselves — or even know to do so.

Uh, this is a shiny object intended to distract and misdirect you. Let this be the last posting on this idiotic gambit.

Does he not understand “Congress shall make no law…” That includes making a law allowing them to make a law.

It contradicts itself. The third clause invalidates the first two. The New York Times is a for-profit corporation, is it not?

    Yep. See above commentary on how to beat the system once put into place. Buy a press, incorporate your [insert political group here] as a “news” organization. Profit [by no longer being subject to ANY campaign finance laws]. If you want to be really, really through about it, put out a newsletter once a year (which can be campaign advertising to boot).

He could have made it shorter:

“The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”

HistoricalForensics | September 9, 2014 at 8:46 am

Well then, what good is setting limits if there is no definitive remedy to hold anyone accountable? Let’s give it some teeth.

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections. That no labor union, nor foreign government or foreign individuals making donations under the auspice of supporting presidential libraries or supporting policy or educational centers established by or on behalf of individual public servants, currently or previously, operating within the federal or State government, nor special interest groups advocating for foreign interests, foreign persons or advocating for illegal activities to be made legal or pardoned, nor citizens, foreign or domestic, as individuals using donations as charitable or charitable corporate political, educational or policy research entities established and operated in order to change or alter the nature and laws of these United States from a Constitutional Republic as defined and ratified in the organic Constitution or to exert influence over policy shall be accepted, directly or indirectly, by any elected, appointed, hired federal or State government employee or public servant. Acceptance of any such funding or donation by political parties, individuals, federal or State employees or appointees shall be punishable by permanent expulsion from federal or State Governance and/or from any other elected or appointed public servant position within the federal and State government and shall result in individuals accepting such financial influence, privately or on behalf of a party, in no less than 10 years of incarceration and no more than fifty years.

That ought to do it.

/sarc

I don’t see a “huge messaging win” so far. The measure advanced on a 79-18 vote, meaning a lot of “Republicans” voted for it. John Cornyn’s (ie Mitch McConnell’s) hilarious criticism of it is that it “empowers incumbents.” The incumbent protection racket is all the GOP E is about. It’s about nothing else. When they wanted their semi-ambulatory candidate in the Mississippi primary runoff, they ran a massive hate campaign saying the Tea Party would prevent blacks from voting. They accepted $250,000 from NY billionaire liberal Bloomberg and $250,000 from another liberal billionaire to help fund the campaign and silence the voice of Mississippi Republican voters. The GOP E is more desperate to silence free speech than democrats are. They’re obsessed with it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend