Today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a constitutional amendment that supposedly protects our democracy by enabling politicians to legislate the way Americans associate and speak about our political leaders.
The amendment, written by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and co-sponsored by 41 senators, would allow Congress to regulate “the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination to, or for election to, Federal office; and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.” According to the preamble, the purpose for this is to “advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes.”
What does this really mean? Can certain types of nonprofit corporations like the Sierra Club and National Rifle Association be banned from mentioning candidates while discussing environmental or gun control issues? Can Congress pass legislation regulating when prominent personalities can use media attention inherent to their status as celebrities to speak about politicians and political causes? Can Congress decide that unions are more “politically equal” than nonprofit organizations and ban nonprofits from speaking out while unions have a free rein?
Udall’s proposed amendment is an invitation for Congress to discriminate against different groups of people based on how they choose to organize themselves, which runs entirely counter to the protections enshrined in the First Amendment. But that’s the point; Udall and his band of political speech authoritarians cannot stand that the Constitution doesn’t allow them to discriminate against certain groups that may impact their chances at getting re-elected.
The proposed amendment goes on to grant Congress the power to regulate “in-kind equivalents” to monetary contributions and expenditures. The way it is written, “in-kind equivalents” could easily include an individual volunteers or those who let people use their property for a campaign. Want to gather at your house with a few fellow activists to make signs before driving across the state to attend a rally? Better not buy coffee and donuts for the group, because under Udall’s proposed amendment, the gas you use, the equivalent value in “rent” for allowing others to gather at your house and the money spent on making posters might bring you awfully close to breaking contribution limits.
While it is extraordinarily unlikely that trying to amend the Constitution to strip Americans of their First Amendment protections will succeed, it is absolutely disgusting that politicians are even entertaining the notion that we need to undo the First Amendment in order to protect our democracy. The ability to freely associate and criticize politicians is an essential ingredient to our form of government, not something that needs to be stifled because the actions of partisan politicians stifle confidence in our elected leaders.
11 comments