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

[HoustonRaven]

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.

Libertarians are famous for saying "Support All The Amendments". That includes Article V.

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.

I am not even sure that point, if any, you're trying to make in this passage.

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.

I'd have to re-read it again, but some of the dissenters felt this matter was for the legislature, since it's not a free speech issue.

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.

I misspoke in my earlier post calling it "legislation" and have since recognized it as a amendment. And again, it limits campaign contributions, not an individuals right to free speech.

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.

The Bill of Rights has always been individual citizen protections, a fact that's perfectly clear in The Federalist Papers and SCOTUS reaffirmation and precedent dating back two centuries over a variety of cases.

The People = Individuals

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.

Individual contributions are already limited. Read up ...

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

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?

All the more evidence that this was never a serious proposal to begin with. Rather, a gesture on the part of Dems to rally their side and piss off the other.

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.

The bolded is a fallacy. I don't doubt there's some Dem's (and GOPers) who seek to stifle free speech and there's serious attempts to do such. This amendment aint it.

[Greg]

The proposal is about limiting the raising and spending of money in politics, that the Supreme Court through Citizens United has deemed "free speech".

It has nothing to do with limiting a citizen's right to free speech. It is all about campaign finance reform.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...te-106179.html

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.

That is pretty clear; NO LAW. None, zero. It doesn't allow for campaign restrictions (specifically what it meant and still should mean, actually).

[HoustonRaven]

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.

That is pretty clear; NO LAW. None, zero. It doesn't allow for campaign restrictions (specifically what it meant and still should mean, actually).

What's being proposed isn't a law.

It's an amendment to the Constitution.

[HoustonRaven]

FTR, I don't have an issue with corporations being treated as individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.

It's the thought that limiting the donation amount is akin to a free speech violation I have issue with. Individuals are limited to how much they can contribute so it's only consistent that corporations can be regulated as well.

[Haloti92]

Libertarians are famous for saying "Support All The Amendments". That includes Article V.

Still not sure how the libertarian position is any different in terms of amending the constitution. My point was directed at your insinuation that libertarians are somehow special or above the fray in terms of constitutional amendment debates (i.e. grabbing popcorn and do not care).

I am not even sure that point, if any, you're trying to make in this passage.

The point is that arguing that the First Amendment applies to groups of people is perfectly sensible. I gave the arguments as to why. I have yet to hear an argument as to why it shouldn't apply (or hasn't applied) to groups of people.

I'd have to re-read it again, but some of the dissenters felt this matter was for the legislature, since it's not a free speech issue.

If it weren't a free speech issue, it would be for the legislature to decide. No one disputes that. Obviously the debate is whether it is a free speech issue.

I misspoke in my earlier post calling it "legislation" and have since recognized it as a amendment. And again, it limits campaign contributions, not an individuals right to free speech.

Read the amendment. It removes any limitations on the government to regulate political speech and activities. "In kind" means in the form of goods and services, not strictly cash.

And since it costs money to transmit your message to more than a handful of people by voice, limiting "expenditures" means limiting ads, flyers, movies, books, TV shows, newspapers, internet sites, symposiums, etc.

The Bill of Rights has always been individual citizen protections, a fact that's perfectly clear in The Federalist Papers and SCOTUS reaffirmation and precedent dating back two centuries over a variety of cases.

I already addressed this thoroughly in the paragraph where you didn't see the point. I don't think SCOTUS precedent supports your claim with regard to corporate rights. After all, the New York Times is a corporation, so you think the freedom of the press or freedom of speech does not protect it? Precedent says it does.

Corporations have been granted many rights contained in the Bill of Rights for well over a century. And sensibly so.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...44-n4-2011.pdf

The People = Individuals

But "individuals" does not show up in the Bill of Rights. ;)

Individual contributions are already limited. Read up ...

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

I am aware of these limits. But McCutcheon vs. FEC just struck down the aggregate limits (which was the specific issue in that case), and we are talking about much more than direct contributions to political campaigns in terms of the Udall amendment. We are talking about spending your own money to spread your own political opinion. In the near future someone might actually challenge these individual direct limits, but the odds they get overturned would be longer than the odds McCutcheon and Citizens United had of prevailing.

And the reason for that is there is a more compelling argument as to why society benefits by prohibiting an individual from handing a specific politician an unlimited bag of cash, which is the fear of quid pro quo corruption.

All the more evidence that this was never a serious proposal to begin with. Rather, a gesture on the part of Dems to rally their side and piss off the other.

I agree, but as I said in another post, I think the Democrats would pass it if they could. For the reasons I stated.

The bolded is a fallacy. I don't doubt there's some Dem's (and GOPers) who seek to stifle free speech and there's serious attempts to do such. This amendment aint it.

The bolded statement can easily be supported. From the attempted restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, to the IRS harassment, to the knee-jerk accusations of "racists" and "deniers", 21st century Democrats have shown a propensity to forego the "win the debate" step and instead chose the "silence the opposition" step and/or the declare the debate "settled/over" step.

This amendment is absolutely an extension of this tactic, despite its zero percent chance of being adopted. The amendment gives the government near carte blanche to legally restrict political speech. Read the amendment and tell me how it does not.

[Haloti92]

FTR, I don't have an issue with corporations being treated as individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.

It's the thought that limiting the donation amount is akin to a free speech violation I have issue with. Individuals are limited to how much they can contribute so it's only consistent that corporations can be regulated as well.

Citizen's United did/does not allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. It allowed it to spend its own money to say whatever it wanted in terms of candidates or issues, i.e. make movies, or run ads, or publish newspapers or books. There is a difference.

And individuals do not have any such limits in terms of spending their own money to say what they want regarding elections. The limits refer to direct contributions to the campaign coffers (to be spent any way the campaign wishes).

[HoustonRaven]

We're never going to agree on many point and things are about to go circular.

[Haloti92]

I am not sure we were about to go circular, but the issue is definitely complicated, and confusing.

[Haloti92]

The truth about the proposed amendment:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ent-1401662112

[NCRAVEN]

The truth about the proposed amendment:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ent-1401662112

That was a good breakdown.

[JAB1985]

I think its funny that we go back to the constitution and say it cant be amended because it says "no law" limiting free speech. our forefathers had no idea how big politics would be in this country. They wanted politicians to be farmers and firefighters and store owners just as much as lawyers, Drs, and whatever. The plan was never for politics to be a career path. So if were going to hold what their intentions were, why dont we start there? which this amendment is actually trying to preserve.

[NCRAVEN]

I think its funny that we go back to the constitution and say it cant be amended because it says "no law" limiting free speech. our forefathers had no idea how big politics would be in this country. They wanted politicians to be farmers and firefighters and store owners just as much as lawyers, Drs, and whatever. The plan was never for politics to be a career path. So if were going to hold what their intentions were, why dont we start there? which this amendment is actually trying to preserve.

How do you mean?