Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

September 12, 2014

First Amendment Dodges A Bullet

At first, the so-called Udall Amendment looked quite innocuous.

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.

The reality, though, is that the proposed constitutional amendment was anything but innocuous. It was instead a direct attack upon the political freedoms of each and every American by a subset of America’s political class intent upon holding on to its political power. Democrats, not content to allow for unlimited political speech by those with whom they disagree, were prepared to make speech about political matters less protected and less legal than speech about Kim Kardashian. Americans would have an unlimited right to speak and write and spend money to criticize Ray Rice for violently assaulting his wife, but not to speak, write, or spend money to advocate for or against candidates for office, government officials, or ballot propositions.

Frankly, this would have turned the entire concept of the First Amendment on its head. Billed as a way of keeping corporate money out of politics (it is allegedly a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision), this would have overturned nearly 40 years of jurisprudence on campaign finance regulations. Not only would it have allowed the banning of corporate political speech, it would have inevitably been used to muzzle interest and advocacy groups, voluntary associations of citizens working together to oppose entrenched interests in their own community. A neighborhood association could (and likely would) be prohibited from opposing a bond measure on a municipal ballot that residents viewed as negatively impacting the quality of life in their neighborhood while their tax dollars are used by city officials to advocate for “needed improvements of local infrastructure.” What’s more, the “reasonable limits” imposed would have had the effect of keeping an individual from using their own money to advocate for their own candidacy for office – undoing a Supreme Court precedent in Buckley v. Valeo that recognized that the right to advocate for one’s own election is a fundamental right.

Of course, there is an additional problem with this proposed (and for now rejected) amendment – it allows for the suppression of political speech (and the complete prohibition of speech by corporations) except by one sort of entity. That is, of course, “the press”. What it would have done, in effect, is turn what was designed to be a right belonging to every American into the preserve of a self-anointed corporate media priesthood. This can be seen in efforts by the Democrats to narrow the definition of “the press” in recent legislation concerning press shield laws. That effort sought to define as “press” only those who were full-time reporters who made a living from their efforts – citizen journalists and commentators like myself (or freelance writers who did not earn the bulk of their income from writing) would have been excluded from its protection. Similarly, one could expect that the New York Times or ABC News would have been deemed “press” under Section 3 of the proposed amendment while a blog like “Rhymes With Right” (run by a full time high school teacher and political activist) would be deemed to not be “press”, my expenditures to maintain the blog declared “spending” to influence an election, and my posts an in-kind contribution subject to regulation “[t]o advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process.” In other words, “freedom of the press” would have become the privilege of an elite (usually corporately controlled) few rather than the right of every American.

What? You say you don’t believe me? Well don’t take my word for it – consider what the ACLU had to say about the matter last summer.

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 office;

• Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington 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 effect, 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 sheriff 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).

Now fortunately, this misbegotten amendment to limit our liberties has been defeated in the Senate due to the efforts of Republicans – not that there was any chance of it passing in the House or being ratified by 38 states. But to each of you, my fellow Americans, I have one message (one which could have been regulated or banned under the Udall Amendment) – Remember in November who sought to take your freedom away.





|| Greg, 04:38 PM || Permalink || Comments (0) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for First Amendment Dodges A Bullet

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/285562
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'First Amendment Dodges A Bullet'.

Comments on First Amendment Dodges A Bullet

Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs