When is a news story not a news story?
When it's a press release.
← This looks like a news item.
It isn't. It's on Tom Udall's Senate web site, TomUdall.senate.gov, financed by taxpayers, an example of misusing a government resource for partisan purposes.
So when you read the “the nation's broken campaign finance system,” it is not fact, it is political opinion being disseminated by the government.
As when you read the Court's ruling that “restricting independent cam-
paign expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech,” as if that is not obvious, you are seeing a politician's opinion cloaked as news, again, paid for by you.
The real problem is just as obvious. Incumbent politicians should not be abusing their free official web pages
to disburse flagrant propaganda, even if that propaganda was not aimed at robbing private citizens of their rights.
To your extreme left [←] is the text of a proposed Constitutional Amendment designed to rescind the First Amend-
ment, curtailing the right of American citizens to participate in the electoral process. Ersatz comedian Al Franken is a co-conspirator pushing this, along with Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer and eleven others. For a change, Progressives are being upfront about their anti-liberal, anti-Democratic biases.
Their movement views control by them as far more valuable than
liberty for you.
Section one begins with double-speak, Orwell's concept that, for example, “War is Peace,” “Ignorance is Strength” and, of course, “Freedom is Slavery.” The conceit is that this Amendment would advance “political equality for all,” which is the opposite of its intent and would be the opposite of its effect, in the unlikely event it became law.
Most important to these foes of free expression, it gives Congress the “power to regulate the raising and spending of money
with respect to Federal elections.” Of course, that negates the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Congress awarding themselves more power over the electoral process is a conflict-of-interest, benefitting incumbents and the Ruling Party over anyone challenging their authority, silencing opposition through intimidation.
Onerous as that is, the Amendment does not stop there. It also gives each state government the power to restrict political communication, based on the same flawed logic that the election process improves with a reduction in open communication.
Acknowledging that this Amendment will be recognized as an attempt to shut down political speech selectively, they provide an exemption for “the press.” “The press” is not defined, so it might well be construed to exclude Bloggers and anyone else expressing opinions. However, the details do not matter. Freedom of speech is not just for publishers and politicians, it is for all Americans.
If a rule like this was passed in any other country, the proponents of the Anti-Free Speech Amendment would be outraged, probably. However, this law is no less evil than the worst any totalitarian regime could muster. The senators ask us to trust Congress to make our elections fairer, and to advance “political equality for all,” whatever that means, all particularly ironic, given that it is Congress advancing this atrocious Amendment, with no groundswell of public support for stripping us of our rights.
Not only does it undermine our basic freedoms, it is short-sighted. The Democrats advancing this fatwa on free speech are forgetting that a Republican-controlled Congress would have the same power to pass laws restricting their opponents. For instance, they could vote to prohibit labor unions from election participation, unions being huge Democratic-party contributors.
Regardless of such intended consequences, this is a bald-faced attack on American Democracy, as it has existed for over 200 years. S.J. RES. 19 is no attempt to overturn a “controversial” Supreme Court decision, it is an attempt to destroy a basic tenet of American freedom that has distinguished this nation through its entire existence.
Udall is a nephew of Arizona Congressman Morris Udall, first cousin of senior Colorado US Senator Mark Udall, double-second cousin of former Oregon US Senator Gordon Smith, and second cousin of Utah US Senator Mike Lee.
So he had no advantages in seeking public office beyond name recognition?
Maybe Udall should advance fairness with an Amendment to stop Congress from being taken over by a few priviliged familes. Udall is a Mormon, like Harry Reid, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Those senators featured in the bill:
Have they no shame?
- Tom Udall (NM-D)
- Michael Bennet (CO-D)
- Chuck Schumer (NY-D)
- Tom Harkin (IA-D)
- Jeanne Shaheen (NH-D)
- Sheldon Whitehouse (RI-D)
- Jon Tester (MT-D)
- Barbara Boxer (CA-D)
- Christopher Coons (DE-D)
- Angus King, Jr (ME-D)
- Christopher Murphy (CT-D)
- Ron Wyden (OR-D)
- Al Franken (MN-D) and
- Amy Klobuchar (MN-D)
Incredibly, 41 Democratic senators signed on to this bill. They are listed alphabetically at the Tea Party News Network (TPNN). Included are Dianne Feinstein, long-time opponent of the First Amendment, and Elizabeth Warren, who has been advanced as a presidential candidate to the left of Howard Dean.
Wacky Senator Harry Reid supports it wholeheartedly, saying in mid-May,
“I understand what we Senate Democrats are proposing is no small thing — amending our Constitution is not something we take lightly. But the flood of special-interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced. Let's keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons.” He may have been referring to his frequent targets, Charles and David Koch.
It doesn't appear Democrats believe this Amendment has the slightest chance of going anywhere, since it doesn't even have a catchy name. I'd suggest calling it “Repeal of the First Amendment.” Still, it is nearly treasonous that they would suggest such a course, so I listed the sponsors, none of whom should be reelected because they do not deserve to hold political office in the United States of America. Maybe they should move to Russia.
Now that we know how most Democratic senators feel about freedom of speech, we can understand why they have no problem with the IRS persecuting groups opposed to the Administration's policies. They are bullies, enemies of freedom and, sadly,