SJC gives approval for constitutional amendment

[Chris0nllyn]

This would effectively strip the First Amendment of any power to stop federal and state lawmakers from imposing campaign finance restrictions.

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text

It will now move to the full Senate for a vote.

Of course, the ACLU opposes S.J. Res. 19

S.J. Res. 19...would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance--namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support.

As we have said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would “fundamentally ‘break’ the Constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations."
Were it to pass, the amendment would be the first time, save for the failed policies of Prohibition, that the Constitution has ever been amended to limit rights and freedoms.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227981894/6-3-14-Udall-Amendment-Letter-FINAL

 

[SamSpade]

I can't see any reason why anyone would even draft such a ridiculous piece of crap, much less suggest it should be tacked on to our Constitution.

I'd like to hear even one good argument why it should be passed.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I can't see any reason why anyone would even draft such a ridiculous piece of crap, much less suggest it should be tacked on to our Constitution.

I'd like to hear even one good argument why it should be passed.

Because SCOTUS.....

http://www.examiner.com/article/har...ampaign-finance-decision-blames-koch-brothers

Seriously though....

Step by step, the U.S. Supreme Court is dismantling our campaign finance system. Citizens United gave free speech rights to corporations and special interests. And with the Court's decision in McCutcheon, the super-wealthy have a green light to donate to an unlimited number of candidates. Now a billionaire in one state can influence the elections in 49 other states.

It's clearer than ever that we need a constitutional amendment to restore integrity in our election system. Money and free speech are not the same thing, and it is a tortured logic to say they are.

Americans are frustrated and they're working as part of a grassroots effort, calling for Washington to reform the campaign finance system. My constitutional amendment, S.J. Res 19, is gaining momentum, with 42 cosponsors to date who agree we must ensure our government is of, by and for the people - not bought and paid for by secret donors and special interests.

http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=1676

 

[Merlin99]

This would effectively strip the First Amendment of any power to stop federal and state lawmakers from imposing campaign finance restrictions.

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text

It will now move to the full Senate for a vote.

Of course, the ACLU opposes S.J. Res. 19





http://www.scribd.com/doc/227981894/6-3-14-Udall-Amendment-Letter-FINAL

I can't see any constitutional amendment passing for years to come, the country is just too polarized to pass anything

 

[Ken King]

I can't see any constitutional amendment passing for years to come, the country is just too polarized to pass anything

Given it takes a 2/3 vote by both chambers of Congress to pass and then ratification by 3/4 of the states before it can be implemented I doubt it too.

 

[Hijinx]

Given it takes a 2/3 vote by both chambers of Congress to pass and then ratification by 3/4 of the states before it can be implemented I doubt it too.

And that is probably a good thing.

 

[BOP]

All true statements, but don't forget: Barry has a phone and a pen.

 

[Tilted]

I can't see any constitutional amendment passing for years to come, the country is just too polarized to pass anything

Given it takes a 2/3 vote by both chambers of Congress to pass and then ratification by 3/4 of the states before it can be implemented I doubt it too.

No doubt. But it's still scary that 45 sitting U.S. senators would sign on to such a proposal. It's disheartening to think that something so antithetical to the ideals on which this nation was founded could get that much support.

If our Founders had kept a short list of things they hoped would remain inviolate, freedom of speech in political matters - particularly in the context of political campaigns - would surely have been on it. If we don't have that we just aren't America anymore, it's that much at the core of what America means.

Beyond the intention of that amendment being loathsome and as un-American as... well... soccer (HA!), it's horribly drafted. Further, it's internally inconsistent - parts of it substantially conflict with other parts of it. Section 3 renders Section 1(2) largely impotent. If Section 1(2) can't be construed to empower Congress to abridge the freedom of the press, in what sense does it authorize the government to limit money spent on political speech? It would only do so to fairly narrow effect. If money is beng spent to effectuate speech, it likely represents the freedom of the press (properly interpreted) being exercised as well as the freedom of speech being exercised. The freedom of the press has historically, for the most part anyway, been meant to refer to the means of communicating information more so than who in particular (e.g. an established newspaper) was communicating it.

 

[GURPS]

Because SCOTUS.....

Progressives are frustrated and they're working as part of a grassroots effort, ....

:fixed: