The National Review is in full panic mode, or it’s doing what it does best, fear monger.
I especially enjoyed their agonizing effort to make money sound like an essential part of “free speech.”
Displeased with recent legal victories in which free speech has prevailed over limitations on political speech imposed by Congress … Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would not only set aside the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence and invest Congress with virtually unlimited power to regulate the political activism of private citizens, alone or in groups, but would also give the federal government and the states the power to shut down newspapers, television stations, and radio networks that displease them.
There’s so much projection here you can choke on it. After reading that first paragraph, the base is probably foaming at the mouth at this point, or will after this additional nudge:
This is an all-out assault on the First Amendment and an act of vandalism against the Constitution.
To many of us, it’s called campaign finance reform, and while we had it in place, the nation didn't collapse or shred the constitution. That’s the job of our activist conservative Supreme Court.
The amendment they are contemplating would … in effect repeal the First Amendment.
Now suspend the idea that this broad amendment would any affect on Democratic contributors:
What they object to is money moving through channels that do not confer advantages upon Democrats. The Left is comfortably ensconced in the unions, the public sector, the educational bureaucracies, and the traditional media, and groups such as Citizens United and True the Vote and thousands of others create new competition in the political marketplace. This amendment is not about cleaning up elections — it’s about the Democrats’ seeking to lock their critics out of the public square.
Now return to the idea that the amendment would indeed have an affect on both parties:
The question here is not the idea of a constitutional amendment but the content of this proposed amendment, which would place virtually all political activism — and most political speech of any consequence — under federal regulation. It is a cynical and dangerous attack on the First Amendment, and should be met not only with resistance but with contempt — for the amendment itself, and for the sort of power-mad men who would propose it.The power mad men? Democrats? Try the 300 to 400 million/billionaires who are already power mad. Who attended the Adelson primary...?