Harry Reid wants to strike free speech from the First Amendment

Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.

Harry Reid — in full-throated anti-Koch brother rant — this week told the world he knows better than the Founders just how much free speech the citizens of this country should be allowed. He announced he is backing an amendment to the Constitution that would tear the heart out of the First Amendment.

Reid promised the Senate would vote soon on an amendment put forth by  Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

The amendment would allow Congress and the states to set limits on contributions to candidates and limits on how much of one’s own money could be spent in support of or opposition to a candidate.

It also expressly states: “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Problem solved. The Koch brothers buy a press — or a television network or a string of radio stations or a website.

These days anyone with a computer owns a “press.” The size of the audience can vary wildly, of course.

That fundamental press freedom flaw aside, Reid’s whole argument that there must be equality imposed on speech by limiting the corrupting power of money is bogus. The rich may try to buy votes with their advertising buys, but any such transaction takes a willing seller.

In his prepared text Reid declares:

The Supreme Court has equated money with speech, so the more money you have the more speech you get, and the more influence in our democracy. That is wrong. Every American should have the same ability to influence our political system. One American, one vote. That’s what the Constitution guarantees. The Constitution does not give corporations a vote. And the Constitution does not give dollar bills a vote. From what I’ve heard recently, my Republican colleagues seem to have a different view. Republicans seem to think that billionaires, corporations and special interests should be allowed to drown out the voices of Americans. That is wrong and it has to end.”

Might we remind the senator from Nevada that his vote in the Senate carries the same weight as those of the senators from California and New York and other states where far more “Americans” reside. So the Constitution does not guarantee one American, one vote.

Nor does the Constitution dictate equal outcomes for all people.

Have the voices of Americans been drowned out as Reid states?

In addition to being a senseless and futile gesture, such an amendment would require a huge bureaucracy to enforce, but, of course, this bureaucracy would be even handed like the IRS and efficient like the VA and responsive like the BLM.

Reid called campaign spending by concerned citizens “one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced.” Concluding in table thumping terms:

“It is unacceptable, that the recent Supreme Court decisions have taken power away from the American voter, instead giving it to a select few. Soon, Chairman Leahy and the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Senator Udall and Bennet’s constitutional amendment. The Senate will vote on this legislation after it is reported out of the Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this constitutional amendment – to rally behind our democracy. 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. It is time that we revive our constituents’ faith in the electoral system, and let them know that their voices are being heard.”

No, the greatest threat is a massive Leviathan of a federal government that sweeps aside freedoms for self-serving reasons and spends our grandchildren into eternal, crushing debt.

The Koch brothers can spend every dime of their billions arguing for conservative policies, but it would be for naught if there is none willing to agree.

Corporations can spend millions selling New Coke and Edsels, but there have to be willing buyers.

Freedom of speech needs no ground leveling. The power to persuade is not the exclusive domain of the loudest, otherwise every debate victor would be the one with the biggest bullhorn.

If this democratic Republic is not a farce, the voters will, eventually, figure out the best route to a more prosperous future.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

13 comments on “Harry Reid wants to strike free speech from the First Amendment

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    I’m all for it if it means I don’t have to hear Harry anymore!

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    Sorry, Bruce, he wants freedom of speech only for him and his chosen ilk. We can all shut the hell up as far as he’s concerned. I hope Harry read the comment in this mornings LVRJ how Obama could adjourn the Congress for the last two years of his current term. That eventuality would push him over the edge, his ravings would include weeping.

  3. Winston Smith says:

    1. Democracy Republic.
    2. Both flavors of klepto-republicrats benefit from ludicrous election spending.
    3. Special interests would not spend millions on elections with a properly limited federal government.
    4. If Harry can’t follow the original Constitution as intended by the Founders, why should anyone trust him to help amending it?
    5. I will offer my free services to help the Koch brothers set up a GoDaddy website. $5/month is probably affordable. I suggest f-harry-reid.com.

  4. Winston Smith says:

    Oops, html strikes again, 1. should be:

    Democracy < > Republic.

  5. Rincon says:

    “Special interests would not spend millions on elections with a properly limited federal government.” Sorry Winston, but that’s not possible. Goes against the laws of human nature.. The reason government isn’t properly limited is precisely because of millions spent by special interests in the first place.

  6. Winston Smith says:

    “It is causality…” – The Merovingian

  7. Vernon Clayson says:

    Money buys access to politicians, therefore money buys favorable treatment for owners oforganizations from politicians. Why is this a surprise to anyone?

  8. Hi there, yeah this article is genuinely fastidious and I have
    learned lot of things from it concerning blogging.
    thanks.

  9. Vernon Clayson says:

    Fastidious? download minecraft cheats either reached way back for fastidious, many years ago my mother was considered a fastidious housekeeper, or did he mean facetious? My spell checker didn’t even like minecraft. DUH!

  10. Steve says:

    This “amendment” has as much of a chance at becoming reality as the anti flag burning amendment Bush Sr. liked so much.
    Reid is tilting at windmills now. The end cannot be far off.

    Is Spam considered “free” speech?

  11. […] Reid’s attempt to rewrite the First Amendment to gag the Koch brothers is just an attempt to protect incumbent […]

  12. […] be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” After it was pointed out that the amendment, by omission, appeared to grant the states the power to abridge freedom of the […]

  13. […] in one of his many diatribes on the subject said: “But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s