Posted on 09/12/2014 8:41:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The constitutional amendment before us, Harry Reid said Tuesday, describing a proposal to give federal and state governments the authority to regulate political giving, isnt about limiting free speech.
Harry Reid, may I present the American Civil Liberties Union. I am sure you two have met before.
Writing in June that the nonprofit strongly opposes the so-called Udall amendment, the ACLUs Laura Murphy and Gabriel Rottman called the Democratic proposal deceptively complex, unnecessary, redundant of existing law, dangerous for liberties, vague, overbroad, exceedingly dangerous to democratic processes, and the first time the amendatory process has been used to directly limit specifically enumerated rights and freedoms. Reids baby, the ACLU said, would break the Constitution by amending the First Amendment.
Two levels of government would be permitted to criminalize and censor all issue advocacy that mentions or refers to a candidate under the argument that it supports or opposes that candidate. Recall that Citizens United, which the Udall amendment is supposed to address, was not about Tea Party Astroturf. It was about the FECs attempt to censor a film critical of her royal highness.
The mandarins at the FEC and IRS, as well as their counterparts at the state level, would be responsible for distinguishing political communications that support or oppose a candidate from those that do not. They would penalize the individuals and groups they subjectively deem violators of administrative diktat. If this is not about limiting free speech, what is?
I am not speaking abstractly. Want an image of a post-Udall world? Think Lois Lerner on Spring Breakafter a bottle of tequila.
My Democratic colleagues and I, Reid says, are trying to address the special interest money that threatens to create a government of elected officials who are beholden to a few wealthy individuals. But we can dismiss this rationalization outright. It is an example of what the Freudians call projection: the denial of immoral urges by transferring them to another. Projection is a disorder.
Special interest money and super-wealthy individuals are two of the most prominent features of todays bourgeois liberalism. The unions, the foundations, the colleges, the liberal-leaning or rent-seeking corporations, the residents of Manhattan and Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills and Ward 3, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Tom Steyer, Marc Lasry, Steve Mostyn, Michael Bloomberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Chris Hughesthese groups, these men, they are not misshapen appendages of the Democratic Party. They are its innards. Its guts.
Indeed, one of the reasons that Reid scheduled a vote on a measure that was sure to be defeated was, in the first place, to curry favor with, and solicit checks from, rich donors to progressive causes who have a sentimental and moralistic aversion to money in politics. It is part of Reids plan to smear Republican candidates as instruments of the wealthy brothers Charles and David Koch, and thereby prevent a GOP takeover of the Senate.
From a financial standpoint, Reids strategy is working. His Senate Majority PAC, which does not disclose its donors, has run more advertisements than the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity, and has spent almost as much money. The fundraising of Democratic Senate candidates is competitive with that of their Republican counterparts. The top three individual contributors to federal elections this cycle are Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg and Fred Eychaner. They are not Republicans. The day that Reid opened debate over the Udall amendment, the DCCC issued a fundraising appeal tied to the vote. Ironic.
The scale of the progressive infrastructure is staggering. It is coordinated and funded by the Democracy Alliance, a secretive group of millionaires and billionaires that plots strategy and giving at meetings in fancy resorts. Documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon reveal that there are at least 172 groups inside the Democracy Alliance network. 113 of them have attacked us, Koch Industries general counsel Mark Holden said recently, noting that far fewer groups31make up Koch world. The Kochs may spend up to $290 million in the 2014 election. Sounds like a lot. But Holden says the progressives may spend somewhere in the ballpark of $2.2 billion.
These numbers make clear that the goal of Reid and Udall is not to expunge money from politics. Their goal is to expunge conservative money from politicsmoney that could be used against incumbents, money that could be used against them, money that could be used to organize and promote alternatives to the Hegelian god-state coming into being before our eyes. Their goal is no less than a silent coup, a renegotiation of the American social contract and the structure of the constitutional order, performed outside the publics notice and without the publics direct consent.
The Udall amendment subverts freedom in two ways. First, by exempting media from regulation, the government would determine who or what the media are. Certified institutions would become the few remaining outlets for free expression. Perhaps you have noticed that the press tends to favor a certain ideological standpoint. In a post-Udall world, the influence of press barons such as Buffett and Bloomberg and Mexican oligarch Carlos Slim would increase. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would silence conservatives further.
There is only one Rupert Murdoch. If someone of like mind as the Koch brothers tried to build a press operation of their own, we know what would happen. The liberal media would revolt.
Second, by endowing governments with the power to ban anonymous political giving, the Udall amendment would usher in an era of witch-hunts and public shaming, with the media using their new powers to condemn and malign and stigmatize and penalize the advocates of unfashionable causes.
We have already seen that a years-old, small donation to a judicially overturned plebiscite can cost a man his job. But the fight over disclosure is about more than the same-sex marriage debate. During the civil rights era, the ACLU notes in its letter, southern states often tried to use laws forcing groups exercising First Amendment rights to disclose their membership, in a bid to run them out of town.
In a post-Udall world, legislative bodies would be arenas where members of one party criminalize the speech of the other. Religious liberty groups would be exiled from, say, New York; gun control groups from Texas. Says the ACLU: Congress would, for instance, be free to pass laws targeting only political speech by groups like ACORN. Or like Americans for Prosperity.
Media power and disclosure work together to undermine the adversaries of the caste, the twenty-first century oligarchy of tech entrepreneurs and media executives, lawyers and administrators, professors and foundation officers, journalists and actors, studio executives and museum officials, heirs and heiresses and progressive and politically connected bankers and investors. This is the plutocracy that dominates the presidency and the Senate and the bureaucracy and the academy and philanthropy and print and electronic media, that determines the contours of elite opinion, that decides what is reality-based and empirical, what is faith-based and ideological. This is the educated class that writes our laws and newspapers and screenplays and late-night comedy routines, that fashions itself the guardian of equality and progress and diversity and all that is true and good even as it profits off the regulations it imposes, the industries it subsidizes, the cheap labor it imports, the racial and sexual controversies it sensationalizes.
What we saw in Harry Reids Senate this week, when the Udall amendment failed a cloture vote, when 54 Democrats voted to refashion the First Amendment to serve the interests of incumbency and power, was not a noble cause. It was not good government. It was not an example of altruistic intentions stifled by Wall Street.
What we saw in Harry Reids Senate this week was an attempt by the ascendant part of the elite, the part that makes its living from abstraction, to vanquish the declining part, the part that makes its living from extraction. And this sorry excuse for a legislative week did more than reveal, in real time, the structure and nature of class struggle in America today. It also occasioned a sentence I never thought I would write. If only Harry Reid listened to the ACLU.
If he can get this passed it is about time to start making politicians into corpses. Neckties, anyone?
Neckties? No, lead.
This infrastructure plus the media are what keep the Democrats afloat.
Understand, as well, that those 172 groups are only partially funded by wealthy Progressives. They gain a substantial portion of their funding from taxpayer dollars -- grants from federal agencies.
If America is to survive, a Republican administration must unravel and defund the Progressive infrastructure.
according to National Association for Gun Rights this was defeated 54 to 42.
The measure may, just possibly, get a majority vote in the Senate. It will certainly not get the 2/3 necessary to pass.
In the utterly unlikely event the Senate did pass it by 2/3, it more certainly would not pass the House.
And if it did pass the House, it probably again could not get even a majority of states to ratify, much less 3/4.
I fail to see why conservatives obsess about this transparently phony effort. It won’t pass, they know it won’t pass, so they’re just going through the motions for political reasons.
I think Reid should be applauded for attempting to amend the Constitution using the proper provisions. It is most certainly better than ignoring the Constitution or “amending” it by judicial fiat.
Uh, Harry, my rights are God given.
Liberal billionaires or conservative billionaires.... its the same..
Fascism deals with both.. if there is any difference at all..
Fascism or socialism they are also the same..
Sounds like a bait and switch going on here..
-OR- Good guy vs. Bad guy.. Somebody is getting screwed..
The New York Times, Inc., yes, the Koch Brothers, Harry's personal obsession and demons, no.
Absolutely incredible that the Captive Press ignored this. They truly are pretty much where the press in Nazi Germany was in 1933.
How can this idiot's base supporters stand the smell in their rooms?
The fact that this attempt to repeal the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment receive majority support in the Senate is disgraceful and should be the top reason the Republicans should control the Senate. Thank you Founding Fathers for requiring two-thirds support in each House of Congress before Congress may submit a proposed amendment to the States for ratification.
LOL, you think Graham or No Chin McConnell will stop it. LOL
Newt said he was going to stop funding the left in 1994. Never got around to it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.