8 2 mins 8 yrs

freedom-of-speechCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So what should we do about this?

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss a constitutional amendment aimed at allowing lawmakers to limit spending on political campaigns by giving Congress the power to regulate “the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections.” The amendment, which was proposed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., has been endorsed by 41 Democratic senators.

That sounds to me like a direct violation of the Constitution to me, and yet I see nothing about it in the headlines.  Congress is directly forbidden from doing this.  Here is an opinion on this I agree with.

“This amendment, if adopted, would give Congress absolute authority to regulate the political speech of every single American,” Sen. Ted Cruz warned on Tuesday. “This amendment is about power, and it is about politicians silencing the citizens.”

Money, Cruz points out, equates to speech; you can’t run an ad, publish a book or launch a blog without spending money. If lawmakers get to decide how much may be spent and when it may be spent, they’ll effectively be able to shut off political speech — except for the press, which would be given an exemption from government censorship.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “Time to send a message

  1. Cruz the Canuck is a liar.

    Money is not speech. Only an imbecile would believe that.

    Even the lawyer who argued that case in the Supreme Court says its not true.

    And blogs do -not- cost money. 99 percent of them are on free host sites like blogger.

    Such as your own site and masterwork,City Troll. You didn’t pay a penny to google to have them host that site as they have for some years.

  2. Money is speech, and government regulating who can say what in political campaigns is a direct violation of the first amendment.

    If your ignorance prevents you from grasping this simple founding freedom you’re not worth trying to convince otherwise.

  3. “The court did not say, and really neither does any serious commentator, that money is speech”

    Dan Backer, the lawyer who argued this Republican case before the US Supreme Court

  4. “The court did not say, and really neither does any serious commentator, that money is speech”

    Dan Backer, the lawyer who argued this Republican case before the US Supreme Court

  5. you’re wrong. I quoted a Senator that disagrees with you, but we now you’re all knowing and the final say on all things.

    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech, and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals’ campaign contributions.

    The majority of the Supreme Court held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, § 608(a), which limited expenditure at election campaigns was “unconstitutional”, and contrary to the First Amendment. The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political “speech” which could not be restricted. The government only had a compelling interest in preventing “corruption or its appearance”

  6. Your own lawyer called bullshit on this fake argument

    But he did his job God bless him

  7. Constitutional amendments require 2/3 of both Senate and House. This is all nonsense.

  8. of course it’s nonsense NYr, the important part of the story is that 41 Democrat Senators want to back a Bill to restrict political speech, and give themselves sole authority over who can say what.

    It is that the people should be concerned about.

Comments are closed.