Under ordinary circumstances, one would think Harry Reid was simply playing to the <90 IQ voters who make up the Democrat base. But with more and more people openly questioning his lucidity, one never knows. Unsatisfied with the Supreme Court's rulings on political speech, and in the throes of a Koch brothers monomania, Reid has signed onto a proposal to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate who can say what during public debates:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday called for amending the U.S. Constitution to bar big money donors from having an outsized impact on the nation's elections, saying billionaire donors were mounting a "hostile takeover" of America.
"Amending our Constitution is not something any of us should take lightly, but the flood of special interest money in our American democracy is one of the glaring threats our system of government has ever faced," Reid said on the Senate floor. "Let's keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy."
The amendment, sponsored by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), would reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United and 2014 McCutcheon rulings, as well as part of its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, and restore certain congressional authority to regulate the raising and spending of money, including that of super PACs.
His fellow traveler in this jihad to silence Americans is, of course, Chuck Schumer:
"Every American should have the same ability to influence our political system. One American, one vote. That’s what the Constitution guarantees," he added. "The Constitution does not give corporations a vote, and the Constitution does not give dollar bills a vote."
Schumer is correct. What he fails to note is that neither corporations nor dollars are registered to vote or included in the decennial Census enumeration. On the other hand, Schumer is in favor of dead and imaginary voters influencing actual elections, hence his opposition to Voter ID.
The political landscape is littered with the figurative corpses of candidates who outspent their opponents by huge margins. In fact, a study by a group in favor of "campaign finance reform" found that money had a limited impact.
• Higher across-the-board spending did not dictate end results: Candidates in the competitive subset raised an average $1.69 million to run for House through October 13, and benefited from $0.46 mil-lion in party spending and $0.50 million in inde-pendent group spending, on average. Nevertheless spending beyond $1.5 million produced negligible returns and even had a slightly negative correlation with the share of general election vote a candidate received, as losers outspent winners by 17% [emphasis mine].
This isn't going anywhere. An amendment has to get 2/3 vote in the Senate and House and be ratified by the States. That just isn't going to happen. What Reid seems to be doing is attempting to build a narrative that the impending repudiation of the Democrat party in November is due to Big Money and the Koch Brothers. Or he could just be batsh** crazy.