Stand up for 1st Amendment
BREAKING: Senate Dems to Hold Vote
to Change the First Amendment
"...Senate Democrats now want to make it virtually impossible for any challenger to win office or any group of voters to band together to “throw the bums out.” And make no mistake, that root of all election evil — money — is absolutely vital to any political challenger’s ability to win an election. Money is the crucial ingredient that all groups, whether non or for profit, need to have a say in the outcome of elections. Without the ability to raise and spend money for print, radio or TV ads, books, pamphlets, movies, etc., no individual or group stands a chance in having their voices heard during an election season."
Stand up for 1st Amendment
Last month, the U.S. Senate passed by a 54-vote majority S.J. Res. 19, so-called Udall amendment that would eviscerate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
The 1st Amendment says:
“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.”
Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico want to revise the 233-year-old amendment to “protect the integrity of government and the electoral process” by giving Congress the authority to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”
The proposed amendment addresses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in “Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission,” which struck down portions of the McCain-Feingold Act prohibiting nonprofit organizations, corporations, labor unions and other associations from spending money to influence elections.
However, the Udall amendment cuts the heart out of the 1st Amendment by giving Congress the power to limit spending of all types in all federal elections. As John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog has written:
“If the amendment were to pass, Congress could make it impossible to challenge incumbents by setting all spending limits at zero, or some other ridiculously low level. The proposal would also allow Congress to ban books or movies that it thinks might influence voters in the ‘wrong’ direction ... It is the most outrageous infringement of free speech that has been seriously proposed in the United States since the Alien and Sedition Acts.”
Incumbent members of Congress already have numerous advantages going into elections, such as franking privileges (or free perpetual campaign mailings), the ability to use “constituent services” to electioneer throughout their four- to six-year terms, name recognition, and access to high-dollar political donors.
Despite the numerous advantages congressional incumbents already enjoy, Senate Democrats now want to make it virtually impossible for any challenger to win office or any group of voters to band together to “throw the bums out.” And make no mistake, that root of all election evil — money — is absolutely vital to any political challenger’s ability to win an election. Money is the crucial ingredient that all groups, whether non or for profit, need to have a say in the outcome of elections. Without the ability to raise and spend money for print, radio or TV ads, books, pamphlets, movies, etc., no individual or group stands a chance in having their voices heard during an election season.
The U.S. Senate wants to make it impossible for those who would challenge the status quo to be able to do so. Perhaps most disappointing is that Virginia’s two Senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, voted with the majority for the Udall amendment.
During his current campaign, Warner has been at pains to distance himself from President Obama and the many votes he’s made in the past six years in support of the president’s agenda. It’s too bad, though, that the senator didn’t stand up for the rights of Virginians and all U.S. citizens and vote against this unconscionable abridgement of our 1st Amendment rights.
More...HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment