Dem Attempt to Amend Bill of Rights Dies in Senate

[rangerrebew]

- Washington Free Beacon - http://freebeacon.com -



Dem Attempt to Amend Bill of Rights Dies in Senate

Posted By Washington Free Beacon Staff On September 11, 2014 @ 3:33 pm In Issues | No Comments


Fifty-four Senate Democrats voted on Thursday to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in American history.

The proposed constitutional amendment, which would dramatically curtail American free speech rights, fell short of the 60 votes it needed to advance. The vote split along party lines.

The measure would have empowered Congress to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”

Its critics said that would amount to a de facto repeal of First Amendment protections for the purposes of political speech.

Its supporters countered that drastic measures are needed to rein in spending on political campaigns. Some, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) said that the amendment would allow Democrats to enact more of their preferred legislation.


Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/issues/dem-attempt-to-amend-bill-of-rights-dies-in-senate/

[Dexter]

No matter where on the political spectrum you fall you must see that inordinate amounts of money being involved in our political system is a bad thing. If money = speech then some people have more free speech than others, apparently. I disagree with this vehemently. The corrupting power of money in politics is largely responsible for our polarized do nothing government.

[alicewonders]

No matter where on the political spectrum you fall you must see that inordinate amounts of money being involved in our political system is a bad thing. If money = speech then some people have more free speech than others, apparently. I disagree with this vehemently. The corrupting power of money in politics is largely responsible for our polarized do nothing government.

The problem is that it's all pretty pre-election talk.  No matter what either party says - things are always designed to LOOK like they're really giving 'em hell - but in reality, they will always leave loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.  It's all talk and flash powder.

[Dexter]

The problem is that it's all pretty pre-election talk.  No matter what either party says - things are always designed to LOOK like they're really giving 'em hell - but in reality, they will always leave loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.  It's all talk and flash powder.

So how do we go about making it not so? We need to be having dialogue about how we close these loopholes and prevent the corruption running rampant in politics.

[sinkspur]

No matter where on the political spectrum you fall you must see that inordinate amounts of money being involved in our political system is a bad thing. If money = speech then some people have more free speech than others, apparently. I disagree with this vehemently. The corrupting power of money in politics is largely responsible for our polarized do nothing government.

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech from your side.  Some people WILL have more free speech than others.

If the GOP enjoys a money advantage, I see that as a necessary corrective to the overwhelming bias of the liberal media. Money is never going to be eliminated from politics, at least in the US.

[Dexter]

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech from your side.  Some people WILL have more free speech than others.

If the GOP enjoys a money advantage, I see that as a necessary corrective to the overwhelming bias of the liberal media. Money is never going to be eliminated from politics, at least in the US.

Money will never be eliminated from politics, but we can minimize the extent to which it can influence and control politicians. Votes don't matter much when you can just buy the politician.

[alicewonders]

So how do we go about making it not so? We need to be having dialogue about how we close these loopholes and prevent the corruption running rampant in politics.

The answer is not easy and that's why you don't see a lot of people lined up to help.  Failing the option of getting the politicians themselves to limit the big money & it's influence.....................we all know that's not going to happen. 

The other option is to overwhelm the media's power to the people by building a real movement of people that are passionate enough to go door to door, and talk to everyone possible about the problem.  Getting new blood in office is really the first step and we've seen how incredibly difficult it is to beat a system that helps the incumbents overwhelm any challengers stupid enough to poke their head out of the hole. 

Our advantage over the ruling elites?  We've got numbers, there are more of us than them and we have to use our numbers.  Any "solution" that these career politicians propose is a crock of crap.   

[jmyrlefuller]

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech from your side.  Some people WILL have more free speech than others.

If the GOP enjoys a money advantage, I see that as a necessary corrective to the overwhelming bias of the liberal media. Money is never going to be eliminated from politics, at least in the US.

But we don't. Most of the wealthiest donors to political campaigns are Democrats. So not only do the liberals control the institutions, they control the money needed to counter the institutions.

There are things we can do, even with the First Amendment, to help negate the effects of Big Money on elections. For one, the FCC technically owns almost all local television and radio and licenses it to individuals and companies, and although they can't, per se, regulate what the owners themselves do in regard to political speech, they can regulate how they sell out that air time. In fact, to a certain extent, they already do. But it could be stricter. They could outright ban the exchange of money for any political advertising on FCC-owned airwaves.

But the licensees make millions off that advertising, and that would never happen.

[andy58-in-nh]

Money does not corrupt politics as much as politics corrupts money.

[Dexter]

Money does not corrupt politics as much as politics corrupts money.

Even using this line of thinking it becomes clear that the two need to be as separate as possible.

[andy58-in-nh]

Even using this line of thinking it becomes clear that the two need to be as separate as possible.

My point is that money isn't the problem. The problem is that our government has grown so large and so powerful that it attracts money with which to purchase influence. Take away the power, and money will find a better purpose.

[Dexter]

My point is that money isn't the problem. The problem is that our government has grown so large and so powerful that it attracts money with which to purchase influence. Take away the power, and money will find a better purpose.

How do we take away the power? The government has not gotten smaller under either party.

[massadvj]

If nothing else can be learned by looking at history, it is this: Capital will always rise to whatever level is necessary to corrupt politics.  The more politicians attempt to regulate the influence of money, the more money will be spent corrupting politicians.  Why?  Because the more regulatory power politicians have, the more money they can collect.

The problem is not money.  The problem is that politicians have too much power.  If they didn't, no one would give them any money, or whatever money they got would be inconsequential.

If you want to reduce the influence of money in government the only way to do it is to reduce the power of the government.
 

[Dexter]

If you want to reduce the influence of money in government the only way to do it is to reduce the power of the government.

This has not been done under any administration that I can think of. How do we go about reducing the size of the government and the power it wields? Do any politicians actually fight for that?

[massadvj]

Money will never be eliminated from politics, but we can minimize the extent to which it can influence and control politicians. Votes don't matter much when you can just buy the politician.

Let's assume that we succeed in controlling the amount of money that can be spent in politics.  Please answer these questions:

1. Won't this be advantageous to incumbents who already have higher name recognition than challengers?
2. Won't this be advantageous to big media conglomerates that have the ability to communicate to large numbers of people via their ownership of mass media outlets?
3.  What is to prevent whichever party is in power (assuming one party controls both houses and the presidency, as happens from time to time) from allowing big money donations from its favored group but not from the other party's favored group?

[Dexter]

1. Won't this be advantageous to incumbents who already have higher name recognition than challengers?

I don't think so. Usually the people with the biggest name recognition have access to the most campaign money, which is why they get so much name recognition. Limiting campaign funds I think would give less known politicians more opportunity to be relevant because they could actually compete. It might even become possible to elect some third party politicians.

2. Won't this be advantageous to big media conglomerates that have the ability to communicate to large numbers of people via their ownership of mass media outlets?

Possibly, but with less money to be made they will have less of a vested interest I think.

3.  What is to prevent whichever party is in power (assuming one party controls both houses and the presidency, as happens from time to time) from allowing big money donations from its favored group but not from the other party's favored group?

We would need to establish something concrete that would prevent favor towards anybody. Would that be easy? No, but I think it could be done.

[massadvj]

I don't think so. Usually the people with the biggest name recognition have access to the most campaign money, which is why they get so much name recognition. Limiting campaign funds I think would give less known politicians more opportunity to be relevant because they could actually compete. It might even become possible to elect some third party politicians.

Possibly, but with less money to be made they will have less of a vested interest I think.

We would need to establish something concrete that would prevent favor towards anybody. Would that be easy? No, but I think it could be done.

Your answers to these questions are so superficial and vacuous I'll just let them stand on their own and let others judge their merits.

[Dexter]

Your answers to these questions are so superficial and vacuous I'll just let them stand on their own and let others judge their merits.

 

[musiclady]

If nothing else can be learned by looking at history, it is this: Capital will always rise to whatever level is necessary to corrupt politics.  The more politicians attempt to regulate the influence of money, the more money will be spent corrupting politicians.  Why?  Because the more regulatory power politicians have, the more money they can collect.

The problem is not money.  The problem is that politicians have too much power.  If they didn't, no one would give them any money, or whatever money they got would be inconsequential.

If you want to reduce the influence of money in government the only way to do it is to reduce the power of the government.

Hear!  Hear!

[Fishrrman]

Dex wrote above:
[[ How do we take away the power? The government has not gotten smaller under either party. ]]

How about Congressional term limits for a start?

Yeah, I know the Constitutional amendment necessary for this will never pass Congress.

But that's one of the reasons why an "Article V convention" might be the last chance to "save the Republic", short of gunsmoke....

[Fishrrman]

Dex wrote above:
[[ How do we go about reducing the size of the government and the power it wields? Do any politicians actually fight for that? ]]

Well, didn't Rand Paul state that as president, he would repeal all previous executive orders?
(Aside, I don't know if he was referring to only Obama's EO's, or in fact ALL of them)

That sounds like a politician who actually sounds like he stands for smaller government and as president would actually do something about it...

[Oceander]

This has not been done under any administration that I can think of. How do we go about reducing the size of the government and the power it wields? Do any politicians actually fight for that?

We - as in you, me, and the guy behind the tree - need to be steadfast and vigilant in our demands on our representatives that they reduce the government.  In particular, it also means giving hard counsel to friends and family that we will have to give up much of what we now get from government that we think we're entitled to.  For example, how about we give up the home mortgage interest deduction?  You want to hear people squawk?  Then raise that at many so-called conservative meetings.  How about we give up social security?  Now you're talking about a crescendo of complaints from all sides.  How about we stop giving welfare to sugar magnates and get rid of the import controls on sugar - and how about all the other farm supports while we're at it.  Go to the reddest parts of the midwest you can find and you'll be lucky if you don't get tarred and feathered for questioning farm supports.

That's the thing that's hardest.  It's easy to demand that government stop doing things for other people; it's hard as hell giving up the things that government does for us.

[aligncare]

If you want to reduce the influence of money in government the only way to do it is to reduce the power of the government.

And that begins and ends by getting rid of the IRS. We The People remain slaves as long as the IRS exists.