Not a joke: Democrats to try to limit free speech by amending the Constitution

[Haloti92]

I'd think Libertarians would expect their law makers to follow the letter of the Constitution and not rely on the courts.

I am not sure who is advocating otherwise in this case.

Since this isn't a free speech issue (in spite of the dogma from the GOP declaring it such) and more of campaign finance limits, I'd assume Libertarians like me are fine that lawmakers are at least following the Constitution and attempting (though it's a fools errand) to use the amendment process and not judicial fiat.

No one is objecting to the process of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are objecting to the specific amendment proposal, and for good reason.

And it absolutely is a free speech issue. If the government claims for itself the authority to restrict spending on speech, then it is claiming the authority to restrict speech. The idea that "too much" free speech is dangerous is a tough one to defend, yet that is somehow what many people seem to reflexively imply.

[HoustonRaven]

I am not sure who is advocating otherwise in this case.

No one is objecting to the process of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are objecting to the specific amendment proposal, and for good reason.

I wasn't advocating anything. Rather, I was responding to your comment about how Libertarians view this issue.

And it absolutely is a free speech issue. If the government claims for itself the authority to restrict spending on speech, then it is claiming the authority to restrict speech. The idea that "too much" free speech is dangerous is a tough one to defend, yet that is somehow what many people seem to reflexively imply.

That's quite a stretch and speaks to the party dogma I mentioned earlier. Considering that the Bill of Rights protects individual rights, not corporate rights, I fail to see any slippery slope you seem to suggest here. I don't agree with SCOTUS when they ruled a cooperation has the same rights as an individual. In fact, IIRC, the court in their ruling said this type of focused legislation was the way to go instead of using the courts as the tool to reign in corporate donations.

That said, this legislations doesn't touch an individuals ability to send money to a PAC, Special Interest Group, etc. It restricts the amount of money a corporation may contribute to a campaign. Since the word "corporation" doesn't appear in the Constitution, I don't see where they have any "right" to give unfettered amounts to any campaign they see fit.

As long as you and I are free to give to the above groups (or directly to a campaign), this doesn't effect an individuals right to free speech one iota.

[NCRAVEN]

I wasn't advocating anything. Rather, I was responding to your comment about how Libertarians view this issue.



That's quite a stretch and speaks to the party dogma I mentioned earlier. Considering that the Bill of Rights protects individual rights, not corporate rights, I fail to see any slippery slope you seem to suggest here. I don't agree with SCOTUS when they ruled a cooperation has the same rights as an individual. In fact, IIRC, the court in their ruling said this type of focused legislation was the way to go instead of using the courts as the tool to reign in corporate donations.

That said, this legislations doesn't touch an individuals ability to send money to a PAC, Special Interest Group, etc. It restricts the amount of money a corporation may contribute to a campaign. Since the word "corporation" doesn't appear in the Constitution, I don't see where they have any "right" to give unfettered amounts to any campaign they see fit.

As long as you and I are free to give to the above groups (or directly to a campaign), this doesn't effect an individuals right to free speech one iota.

The slippery slope for me would be if they went the route of amending the constitution and then have some SCOTUS judges misinterpret what it meant, much like with ACA.

[HoustonRaven]

The slippery slope for me would be if they went the route of amending the constitution and then have some SCOTUS judges misinterpret what it meant, much like with ACA.

Still quite a stretch, given the make up of Congress.

And the courts cannot invalidate a Constitutional amendment unless it contradicts another part of the Constitution. Since this is a proposed amendment and not a bill, the courts have very little say.

[NCRAVEN]

Still quite a stretch, given the make up of Congress.

And the courts cannot invalidate a Constitutional amendment unless it contradicts another part of the Constitution. Since this is a proposed amendment and not a bill, the courts have very little say.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm not saying SCOTUS has any power over the law. I'm talking about how ACA was passed and then they tried to say it was under the commerce clause, ultimately finding it a tax. My concern would be that somewhere down the road IF this were passed, that something similar in regards to free speech would happen and SCOUTS would agree.

Hard to say what all that may be or even if/when. But that would be my concern.

[HoustonRaven]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm not saying SCOTUS has any power over the law. I'm talking about how ACA was passed and then they tried to say it was under the commerce clause, ultimately finding it a tax. My concern would be that somewhere down the road IF this were passed, that something similar in regards to free speech would happen and SCOUTS would agree.

Hard to say what all that may be or even if/when. But that would be my concern.

You're not understanding the Amendment process.

Amendment's that are ratified do not go through SCOTUS scrutiny, thus there won't be an ACA moment where the court calls it something it isn't. That only happens on statute or legislation passed by Congress. There's no slipping down a slope because there's no slope.

Once an amendment is ratified, that's it. Its in the Constitution and, by definition, constitutional.

[NCRAVEN]

You're not understanding the Amendment process.

Amendment's that are ratified do not go through SCOTUS scrutiny, thus there won't be an ACA moment where the court calls it something it isn't. That only happens on statute or legislation passed by Congress. There's no slipping down a slope because there's no slope.

Once an amendment is ratified, that's it. Its in the Constitution and, by definition, constitutional.

Yeah, we're not talking about the same thing. I'm trying to work and talk about this at the same time. No worries.

[Haloti92]

I wasn't advocating anything. Rather, I was responding to your comment about how Libertarians view this issue.

Yes, and my point was that there is nothing distinctive about the way a libertarian would view the validity of attempting to amend the constitution or the roles judges play in determining constitutionality.

That's quite a stretch and speaks to the party dogma I mentioned earlier. Considering that the Bill of Rights protects individual rights, not corporate rights, I fail to see any slippery slope you seem to suggest here. I don't agree with SCOTUS when they ruled a cooperation has the same rights as an individual. In fact, IIRC, the court in their ruling said this type of focused legislation was the way to go instead of using the courts as the tool to reign in corporate donations.

There is nothing dogmatic about recognizing/arguing that corporations are nothing more than groups of people. The idea that groups of people with common goals or beliefs would disappear without some kind of state sanction or label is hard to swallow. These groups have and would exist without special state recognition/labels.

In addition, if corporations do not have any constitutional rights to free speech then why would one assume they have any rights at all? Fourth amendment rights? Sorry, the feds can search your offices without a warrant. Fifth amendment rights? Sorry, the feds can confiscate corporate property or assets without offering any compensation. Religious services on corporate property? Sorry, no free exercise clause for the corporation. Up until now common sense and precedent has realized that people, even in groups, have rights.

If groups of people in the form of corporations cannot enjoy these rights then how can one argue that other groups of people can keep their bundle of legal rights? Schools and universities, charities, churches, non-profits, political parties, partnerships, etc.? If the idea that special state-recognition means a sacrifice of individual rights, than even a sole proprietorship is not immune from the infringement.

As for what you recall about the specific Citizen's United decision, I would need more detail to respond; I am not exactly sure what you are talking about when you say you believe SCOTUS suggested "this type of focused legislation." We actually are talking about a constitutional amendment, not a standard piece of legislation. The amendment, if successful, would allow specific pieces of legislation (currently unknown) to restrict unwanted speech, almost without limit according to the proposal.

That said, this legislations doesn't touch an individuals ability to send money to a PAC, Special Interest Group, etc. It restricts the amount of money a corporation may contribute to a campaign. Since the word "corporation" doesn't appear in the Constitution, I don't see where they have any "right" to give unfettered amounts to any campaign they see fit.

Again, I have no idea what you mean when you say "legislation." The constitutional amendment being proposed is nothing more than the government reserving its right to regulate and limit political speech, by stripping away a constitutional protection. And it certainly applies to PACs. And it applies to individuals. And it doesn't just apply to money, but also the nebulous "in-kind" contributions. And it doesn't just apply to campaign contributions, but also the nebulous "in support of, or in opposition to" speech. In short, it is an open-ended amendment that allows the government to make any laws it wants in terms of restricting or silencing political speech, there is no other way to read the amendment.

As for the word "corporation" not appearing in the Constitution, I don't see the relevance. I already addressed the fact that corporations are nothing more than groups of people, and the First Amendment, for example, states:

Congress 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.

I don't see "individual" in this amendment. I do see "the people." I thought libertarians would err on the side of freedom of the people against the side of government interference/control, especially regarding something as important as speech.

As long as you and I are free to give to the above groups (or directly to a campaign), this doesn't effect an individuals right to free speech one iota.

What good is it to give to or belong to a group if the group can be silenced and its rights taken away? And of course, the amendment, as written, would allow the government to restrict individual contributions in any way it wanted.

The best part of the proposed amendment, and the part that shows the true intentions of the Democrats proposing it (and it isn't 'fairness'), is the added section that carves out an exception for the "press" despite the fact the "press" is a bunch of corporations. We wouldn't want anyone to restrict the New York Times from providing its constant stream of "in kind" contributions to the Left's political campaigns, now would we?

I guess there would be an explosion of new "media" corporations if this dangerous amendment actually passed (but it won't).

It is obvious to anyone who understands current politics, that Democrats are trying to stifle the speech of their political opponents. Nothing more is being proposed here than that.

[NCRAVEN]

Again, I have no idea what you mean when you say "legislation." The constitutional amendment being proposed is nothing more than the government reserving its right to regulate and limit political speech, by stripping away a constitutional protection. And it certainly applies to PACs. And it applies to individuals. And it doesn't just apply to money, but also the nebulous "in-kind" contributions. And it doesn't just apply to campaign contributions, but also the nebulous "in support of, or in opposition to" speech. In short, it is an open-ended amendment that allows the government to make any laws it wants in terms of restricting or silencing political speech, there is no other way to read the amendment.

This is what I was referring to when I said how SCOTUS interprets the law. If a challenge came against this they could say, yeah you can't do or say that based on how it's written etc. Thus the slippery slope.

[NCRAVEN]

It is obvious to anyone who understands current politics, that Democrats are trying to stifle the speech of their political opponents. Nothing more is being proposed here than that.

Actually, I think it's just to rally the base. So they can say "hey we proposed an amendment to limit the Koch brothers buying elections, but the GOP voted against it".

If there's ever any doubt about what the Demorats are up to, it's usually that - don't offer real solutions, just talk about things the GOP won't pass and blame them for everything.

[Haloti92]

This is what I was referring to when I said how SCOTUS interprets the law. If a challenge came against this they could say, yeah you can't do or say that based on how it's written etc. Thus the slippery slope.

Yeah, the word choices used in some posts (including my own) have confused the issue a bit.

Their can be no SCOTUS "challenge" to the amendment itself, once it passes. But there could be challenges to laws that are subsequently passed that would require SCOTUS to interpret the amendment (i.e. the Constitution) in determining whether the laws that are subsequently passed violate the Constitution.

[Haloti92]

Actually, I think it's just to rally the base. So they can say "hey we proposed an amendment to limit the Koch brothers buying elections, but the GOP voted against it".

If there's ever any doubt about what the Demorats are up to, it's usually that - don't offer real solutions, just talk about things the GOP won't pass and blame them for everything.

No doubt they know that the amendment will not pass, so therefore the answer to the question of "why propose it?" is certainly to rally their base.

But I am not so sure that the Democrats would not actually pass it if they did indeed have the numbers.

They have certain built-in advantages when it comes to political support that they are trying to protect at all costs, and silencing a growing and more vociferous opposition falls into their "by any means necessary" modus operandi, just like the IRS harassment of the growing grass-roots opposition they were seeing in 2010-2012.