Free Speech Under Attack from Left, Again
The left is at it again with their latest attack on free speech in their effort to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010. Today, Pelosi endorsed other Democrats in amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate political speech by corporations.
Now I have a completely different idea on how presidential campaigns should be run, but setting that aside, this decision has provided the only semblance of an even playing field for the right. The press is clearly not our 4th branch of government as envisioned by our Founders and hasn’t been for years so this decision clearly leveled the playing field.
This is scary on so many levels since it’s only the Democrats that want to silence free speech when they don’t agree with it or feel threatened by it. More importantly, why would we trust anyone in government to regulate our First Amendment right? They can’t regulate what they’re
supposed to by law and now they want to give Congress the lawful ability to regulate corporations for speaking out and funding PACs that reflect their values? I smell scared rats.
This works on both sides of the aisle to be sure but this seems to be in response to a looming presidential election loss on the horizon and the left just wants to shut down their competition. My guess is the Dems would be for it if it worked in their favor- oh wait, they did when Obama
said he wouldn’t take PAC money but now he will. Now there’s a flip flop on his values when money and the White House is on the line!
Here are two excerpts from an article posted on cnsnews.com on 4/19/12 by Terence P. Jeffrey titled: ”Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment”:
First from Pelosi: ““We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.
The second longer quote is from Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.):
“Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.) explained the basic principle this move to amend the Constitution is advancing. “In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of speech,” said Edwards. “And so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn’t within Congress’s constitutional–our constitutional purview. And so, you know, the traditional rights of free speech that we have known as citizens would not be disturbed by any of these constitutional amendments,” said Edwards. “But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it’s corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and–and under our Constitution.” “I mean, in my view, a corporation is not a person. It is not an individual,” said Edwards. “The rights that it has are those that are granted by the state, granted by the, by the Congress.”” (end of cnsnews.com quote)
Now that’s some scary stuff from duly elected officials!
The Supreme Court’s decision proved once again that the government had no limiting principle in their case against Citizen’s United.
My position is on campaigns is they should be limited it to a set amount of time, say 6 months, not to limit free speech but to make our elected officials concentrate on the work of the people instead of running perpetual campaigns from the day after they get elected. And secondly, to limit presidential campaigns to a set dollar amount, say 10 million, so we have level playing field and a “commoner” can successfully campaign for the presidency. It shouldn’t have to take a billion dollars to run for the highest office of the land.
Yes, at first glance my position seems to defy the Supreme Court’s decision and contradict exactly what I’m posting about, except it’s a pipe dream, will never happen and I live in the real world. If the Dems said that campaign money shall be an equal sum for each Party then I’d be for it, but they don’t and won’t but they just want more power to control the agenda in this country.