There is enormous mischief in the proposed constitutional amendment voted out (10-8, along party lines) by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. Enormous and purposeful.
Drafted, ostensibly, to deal with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, the amendment would grant Congress unprecedented and ultimate authority over the First Amendment. No, silly. Nekkid dancing, flag burning and street-corner begging would remain protected forms of expression.
If, on the other hand, you and your neighbors decided you weren’t happy with your congressman, so you pooled your money to support a rival, you would most likely come to the attention of whatever agency sprung from the absolute horror proposed by Sen. Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat.
To be utterly clear, the ginned-up hysteria over Citizens United (Corporations are people! Ack!) is only the excuse; what Udall and his cast of lefty Senate dunces introduced last year and approved Thursday is a cynical attempt at a power grab (plus election-year fund-raising) that has as much to do with curbing corporate influence as jersey colors have to do with who wins the Super Bowl.
In Udall’s ideal America, Congress would decide, absolutely, virtually every question regarding campaign financing at the federal level: who, what, when, where, how and, quite possibly, why. On this, the text is abundantly clear:
Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections ...
There’s more, about setting limits on contributions to candidates, or how much can be spent to support or oppose candidates, but those specifications come only after an extremely important word: “Including.”
“Including” is not a limiting verb; it simply delineates some of the areas to which Congress would help itself, but it in no way constricts them. The money phrase is contained in the first 15 words, from “Congress” to “equivalents.” Proponents can gussy it up in the preamble with other fancy words, such as “equality” and “integrity,” but those are eye-of-the-beholder terms. Behind the closed doors of committee rooms, nothing would get by, no matter what the weasly Dick Durbin claims.
Could Congress block political movies? Durbin says no, but it’s happened before.
In 2008, Citizens United meant to broadcast a film unflattering to Hillary Clinton, then a candidate for president, but was blocked by the Federal Elections Commission, acting on rules set forth by McCain-Feingold, the notorious act meant to restrict the when, how and wherefore of spending by outside groups on campaigns. Under Udall’s amendment, such a movie would represent an in-kind activity subject to regulation, and there would be no ability for SCOTUS to set things right.
In a 5-4 decision in 2010, the on-again, off-again conservative majority overturned the lower courts, ruling that the First Amendment means what is says about Congress making no law abridging the freedom of speech, as well as Americans having the freedom to associate, and to assemble for the purpose of petition. If federal law prohibited the people who made up Citizens United from spending money to have their movie distributed and screened, then the law was interfering with that group’s guaranteed right to associate, assemble and speak.
Really. This isn’t hard. And the left’s resistance to the elegant, and above all equitable, language of the First Amendment is revealing. So says John Hinderaker over at Power Line:
Nearly all Democrats now support a proposal that could easily be applied to terminate the electoral process by making it illegal to spend money to unseat incumbents. That tells you all you need to know about today’s Democratic Party, the party of the entrenched and powerful.
Obviously, the proposal will never get the two-thirds votes necessary to pass out of Congress, let alone three-fourths of the states, but this monstrous threat to America’s proper and illuminating jousting of ideas makes identifying its supporters a key obligation of responsible citizens.