The left is at it again with their latest attack on free speech in their effort to overturn the
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010.
Today, Rep. Pelosi endorsed other Democrats in amending the Constitution to allow Congress
to regulate political speech by corporations.
Now I have a completely different idea on how presidential campaigns should be run,
but setting that aside, this decision has provided the only semblance of an even playing
field for the right. The press is clearly not our 4th branch of government as envisioned by
our Founders and hasn’t been for years so this decision clearly leveled the playing field.
This is scary on so many levels since it’s only the Democrats that want to silence free speech
when they don’t agree with it or feel threatened by it. More importantly, why would we trust
anyone in government to regulate our First Amendment right? They can’t regulate what they’re
supposed to by law and now they want to give Congress the lawful ability to regulate corporations
for speaking out and funding PACs that reflect their values? I smell scared rats.
This works on both sides of the aisle to be sure but this seems to be in response to a looming
presidential election loss on the horizon and the left just wants to shut down their competition.
My guess is the Dems would be for it if it worked in their favor- oh wait, they did when Obama
said he wouldn’t take PAC money but now he will. Now there’s a flip flop on his values when
money and the White House is on the line!
Here are two excerpts from an article posted on cnsnews.com on 4/19/12 by Terence P. Jeffrey titled
“Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment”:
First from Pelosi: ““We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the
roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to
use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday
The second longer quote is from Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.):
“Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.) explained the basic principle this move to amend the
Constitution is advancing.
“In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of
political speech,” said Edwards. “And so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question
of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn’t within Congress’s
constitutional–our constitutional purview.
“And so, you know, the traditional rights of free speech that we have known as citizens would not be
disturbed by any of these constitutional amendments,” said Edwards. “But what it would do is it
would say, all of the speech in which, whether it’s corporations or campaign committees and others
engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and–and under
“I mean, in my view, a corporation is not a person. It is not an individual,” said Edwards.
“The rights that it has are those that are granted by the state, granted by the, by the Congress.”” (end of cnsnews article)
Now that’s some scary stuff from duly elected officials!
The Supreme Court’s decision proved once again that the government had no limiting principle in their
case against Citizen’s United.
My position is on campaigns is they should be limited it to a set amount of time, say 6 months, not to limit
free speech but to make our elected officials concentrate on the work of the people instead of running
perpetual campaigns from the day after they get elected. And secondly, to limit presidential campaigns
to a set dollar amount, say 10 million, so we have level playing field and a “commoner” can successfully
campaign for the presidency. It shouldn’t have to take a billion dollars to run for the highest office of the land.
Yes, at first glance my position seems to defy the Supreme Court’s decision and contradict exactly
what I’m posting about, except it’s a pipe dream, will never happen and I live in the real world. If the
Dems said that campaign money shall be an equal sum for each Party then I’d be for it, but they don’t
and won’t but they just want more power to control the agenda in this country.