War on Christianity Continues

[AUDub 11,153]

Question: Why does the Far Left in this country completely deny that any of what was written here exists at all?

Do they?

[DKW 86 7,426]

Question: Why does the Far Left in this country completely deny that any of what was written here exists at all?

Do they?

See my other thread. There is a 3 hour conversation there where the founder of TYT is denying everything in the attached article

[japantiger 4,051]

Harry Reid and the democrats in the Senate have been trying to do just that this year with their amendment that would essentially gut the first amendment. Ben you are not they. You are a liberal but you are not one of these way left wing militants. At least I don't think you are.

Which bill?

The Udall bill; it was a propsoed revision to the 1st amendment to prevent political speech. All 48 Dems signed it; didn't get enough votes to come to the floor. The Dems are still pissed at Citizen's United ruling so they decided we could only have so much free speech.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Harry Reid and the democrats in the Senate have been trying to do just that this year with their amendment that would essentially gut the first amendment. Ben you are not they. You are a liberal but you are not one of these way left wing militants. At least I don't think you are.

Which bill?

The Udall bill; it was a propsoed revision to the 1st amendment to prevent political speech. All 48 Dems signed it; didn't get enough votes to come to the floor. The Dems are still pissed at Citizen's United ruling so they decided we could only have so much free speech.

Do you agree with the Citizens United ruling?

[quietfan 233]

Harry Reid and the democrats in the Senate have been trying to do just that this year with their amendment that would essentially gut the first amendment. Ben you are not they. You are a liberal but you are not one of these way left wing militants. At least I don't think you are.

Which bill?

The Udall bill; it was a propsoed revision to the 1st amendment to prevent political speech. All 48 Dems signed it; didn't get enough votes to come to the floor. The Dems are still pissed at Citizen's United ruling so they decided we could only have so much free speech.

I assume you are talking about this resolution:

https://www.congress...13sjres19rs.xml

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

“Article —

SECTION 1.To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

SECTION 2.Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

SECTION 3.Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”.

Obviously everyone has (and is entitled to) their own opinion, but to say this "would essentially gut the first amendment" seems a rather exaggerated reaction to me. Although I recognize that many conservative politicians want to characterize it as an all-out assault on our 1st Amendment freedoms, I view that description as dishonest sensationalism. It does not even touch four of the five freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It affects freedom of speech only in the sense of giving Congress the power to regulate campaign expenditures. So it does not restrict my right to speak my mind or to criticize the government.

Udall defends his amendment this way:

http://www.tomudall....release&id=1329

...

The Supreme Court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago, which is addressed specifically by the Udall and Bennet amendment. In 1976, the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech, essentially saying that money and speech are the same. Building on this flawed precedent, the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans. Since then, corporations have been able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity and mostly negative campaign advertising. With the Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority in the Constitution to regulate the campaign finance system.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Super PACs and 501© nonprofit groups spent $1 billion in unlimited contributions from millionaires, billionaires, corporations, labor unions and other special interest groups to influence the 2012 federal elections. As much as $400 million of this total came in the form of secret donations.

In 1900, Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan and their fellow robber-barons pooled their money to essentially "buy" the presidency for William McKinley. I don't want that to happen again, regardless of party. I'm particularly uncomfortable knowing that $400 million was given in secret donations, so we the citizens have no idea who is trying to "buy" our government. While the 1st Amendment says nothing about everyone having an equal voice, I would think common sense would suggest that a billionaire does not deserve a far greater voice simply because he has far greater money. Ditto for corporations, special interest groups, PAC's and unions. Distinguishing between individuals and special interest groups when it comes to campaign spending and guaranteeing everyone an equal voice regardless of wealth sound like conservative principles to me. Also, as anti-union as many conservatives are, seems like they would favor anything that reduced the voice of unions.

In any case, this is hardly a "plot" confined to a small cabal of "way left wing militants":

http://www.rollcall....dczone=politics

This strategy of changing the Constitution to address campaign finance has been part of an expanding national grass-roots movement.

...

Since Citizen’s United, 16 states have passed measures urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment overturning the court’s decision. In Montana and Colorado, voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment in statewide ballot initiatives. Resolutions are also pending in 22 states.

Realistically though, this will never get the 2/3rds vote required in Congress, so it's pretty much a moot point. If it should get through Congress, then it deserves to be presented to the States/people who have the option of accepting or rejecting it. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution is hardly an attack on our democratic process. Otherwise the writers of the Constitution would not have included a process by which it can be changed.

[japantiger 4,051]

The Udall Amendment basically said Congress can decide what is permissible political speech....this is why the Supreme Court struck down Citizen's United in the 1st place. While no one likes to think elections can be bought, I like the idea less that the gov't can ban a book or a movie based on it's POV that it is impermissible political speech. Read what Elena Kagan, then solicitor general said trying to defend the gov't in that case...she said the gov't could ban political pamphlets (you know, those little things like Common Sense, The Federalist Papers, etc.)...her statements ultimately lead to the Supreme Court ruling...