BigOlBear

OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's see what you think about this. Senate Democrats (plus the Socialist Bernie Sanders) have proposed an Amendment to the Constitution that has a direct bearing on the 1st Amendment and will, in fact, limit political speech. I'd like to hear some informed opinions but, please read it before you comment.
-----------------
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. J. RES. 19
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect e******ns.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 18, 2013
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALLof Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures in-tended to affect e******ns. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two- 2 thirds of each House concurring therein), 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:
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n 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 e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n 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.’’.

Co-Sponsors:
1. Tammy Baldwin (WI)
2. Mark Begich (AK)
3. Michael Bennet (CO)
4. Richard Blumenthal (CT)
5. Cory Booker (NJ)
6. Barbara Boxer (CA)
7. Sherrod Brown (OH)
8. Benjamin Cardin (MD)
9. Thomas Carper (DE)
10. Christopher Coons (DE)
11. Richard Durbin (IL)
12. Dianne Feinstein (CA)
13. Al Franken (MN)
14. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
15. Kay Hagen (NC)
16. Tom Harkin (IA)
17. Martin Heinrich (NM)
18. Mazie Hirono (HI)
19. Tim Johnson (SD)
20. Angus King, Jr. (ME)
21. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
22. Edward Markey (MA)
23. Robert Menendez (NJ)
24. Jeff Merkley (OR)
25. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
26. Christopher Murphy (CT)
27. Patty Murray (WA)
28. Jack Reed (RI)
29. Harry Reid (NV)
30. John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
31. Bernard Sanders (VT)
32. Brian Schatz (HI)
33. Chuck Schumer (NY)
34. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
35. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
36. Jon Tester (MT)
37. Mark Udall (CO)
38. John Walsh (MT)
39. Elizabeth Warren (MA)
40. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
41. Ron Wyden (OR)

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

It's for show.

Democrats h**e it when anyone else gets to speak. But they know it won't pass.

It's just to put on a show for their supporters that have tyranny-envy.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Notice how they gave the press an exemption from their censorship amendment.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Even more telling, how they avoid defining what the "press" is - one can construe many things as the press - from blogs to back yard gossiping. That works for them, they'd establish a bureaucracy of press credentials and disqualify Fox on day one.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

This is the difference in the old Liberal Democrats and the new Progressive Democrats.

Liberals wanted freedom of speech. They took it off of a cliff, but they did support free speech.

They would have never favored a Censorship Amendment.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Just another form of censorship, however it really doesn't censor free speech. It censors the amount of money that can be spent. This does not define whether the money is spent on political propaganda but rather on "if a candidate..."

In other words, if Fox News, ABC, NBC, or CBS does a report on either a favored candidate, or an unfavored candidate, and the networks are for profit agencies, for the purpose of entertainment, then if they spend their money running a report or "investigative report", is that considered "campaign expenditure"? If it is then that is free speech censorship, due to the fact that debates were to be the only legal form of campaigning for both candidates can show their view to ensure an intelligent show of character.

A debate is allowed to be used for campaigning for each candidate during a debate, can defend themselves and they can attack each other. A campaign ad is just one sided. And a reporters investigative report is in the opinion of the reporter.

For example, and I'll pick on fox news, If Sean Hannity, runs a report on Obama during the e******n, and it is unfavorable for Obama, is it right to say Mitt Romney paid for Sean's investigative report?

Same vice versa. If the liberals are fighting for a candidate on their own and the conservatives are fighting for a candidate on their own, would the money spent their be considered "Campaign Contributions?"

Campaign contributions and expenditures must be defined.

But I do agree with protecting Congress, E******ns, and the Legislative, Executive processes. And controlling the polarity of the public when two forces, ie liberals and conservatives, fight over their principles.

BigOlBear

Very interesting perspective ... well done. :thumbup:

Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana

It figures that both of my liberal senators are co-sponsering it.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Censoring money is censoring speech.

The Congressmen get boatloads of free media. Under McCain Fiengold, groups were banished from running an ad that spoke about a candidate 90 days before an e******n, even to honestly show his v****g record. Informing the public of his v****g record is free speech, but to put in on the air costs money.

Like many Rove Crossroad political ads, they don't actually endorse a candidate. Most ask you to call the Democrat and tell him to stop doing wh**ever stupid liberal thing the Democrat is doing. Sure, it's political, but it's also free speech.

Who would we put in charge of deciding what is political? A speech Czar? How about the IRS?

The best way out of this is to end all political deductions, put an end to contribution limits, and let everyone run as many ads as they care to run.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

If the politicians really wanted to reform in this area all that would be needed is two rules:

1 - only registered v**ers could make contributions of any amount to any candidate. Corporations, unions or other entities could not make any contributions.

2 - all contributions from any registered v**er to any candidate be public knowledge.

If George Soros or Bill Gates or the Koch's wanted to spend billions to get me elected (assuming they're registered v**ers - not likely in Soros' case) and the folks v****g for me had total access to that information - so what.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I agree. And you bring up another point. They have not defined campaign contributions, and have given deductions to those who campaign. No!

For if that's the case, why not bombard the internet with ads that can run by a bot for free. Eventually the government would try to make them illegal, but once it happens they would not be able to stop it. And that argument would spring up again.

There are ways to campaign that don't involve money for example, internet. You can make a website, then go on social media, and spread the word about the website. Then people who are curious come to your website that has an addictive video or video game on it. And people flock to your website.

In the site you post the political campaign as, oh I don't know like, "The creator of this website is running for President, please v**e for me. Thank you" or something subtle like that.

As the popularity of the website increases, then the people, get exposed to the candidate and begin to love the candidate.

A whole internet campaign done for what the cost of a website, and some time. And there is free webhosting so it could be done for free.

And most things that are on the internet get picked up by the networks in time and radio too. So, you could have a completely free campaign, that cost the candidate nothing. That is in theory.

So this law is stupid. I want to write the senate to k**l it.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Sounds good, but again it steps on freedom.

If I want to have a group funded by secret donors that inform the public about someone's v****g record, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Suppose someone is afraid of being targeted by the IRS?

What if Union thugs start targeting donors of Republican candidates?

Freedom is the solution, not a smarter way to control people.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Again I agree. The best way to control the people, is to have the people control themselves.

BigOlBear

My compliments to those of you who have commented so far. Clearly we have some very astute and well-informed individuals on this website whose opinions are worthy of consideration.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

The problem with secretly funded infomercials is they can lie as easily as tell the t***h. An example, locally a real conservative was running in a primary against probably the most liberal Republican in the House - and the local media was inundated by commercials falsely claiming she was a liberal - and the organization behind it was fully funded by a disguised group that were far left gay rights advocate organizations. The average citizen would literally have to work his buns off to learn that gross lie - that worked, she lost by a healthy margin