Obama Democrats Double Down on “Fundamental Change” by Proposing to Repeal the First Amendment
“All these people talk so eloquently about getting back to good old-fashioned values. Well, as an old poop I can remember back to when we had those old-fashioned values, and I say let’s get back to the good old-fashioned First Amendment of the good old-fashioned Constitution of the United States—and to hell with the censors! Give me knowledge or give me death!” —Kurt Vonnegut
A Reprehensible Amendment Is Proposed
Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) has proposed a repeal of Americans’ free-speech rights. This alone is bad enough. But can you believe that all 53 Democrats, along with both of the Independents who caucus with them, support this proposed amendment?
Trending: Liberal Propaganda & the War on Truth
Known as the Udall Amendment, it is the Democrats’ idea of how to limit campaign contributions by companies and trade unions. Their solution is for the Congress to take over formal regulation of your political speech. Here is the text of the proposed amendment: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text.
The Udall Amendment is an attempt by Democrats to strike down the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which barred restrictions from being placed on corporations and unions with regard to spending money from their general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates.
“Citizens United gives corporate special interests the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who is running for a second term. But his claim is not entirely true. Yes, Citizens United does take limits off of the number of campaigns that can receive contributions, but it retains the limits on each individual campaign contributed to. Thus, what has been delimited is the right to contribute to any and every political campaign where there might be a political interest.
When it comes to political campaigns, money equals speech. There is no way around this. Screaming your opinion from the town square will get you nowhere. You need to employ advertising media, and that takes a financial expenditure on your behalf.
Here’s the Problem
The problem with the amendment, as it is written, is that it gives government the power to decide whether or not it can be criticized. In essence, companies (which are made up of people) and unions (which are also made up of people) will be denied freedom of expression with regard to advertising for or against political candidates, unless they first seek and gain approval from the government (which is made up of people being criticized).
“Expenditures intended to affect elections” could technically apply to any American’s expenditure of a quarter to copy a picture of Mickey Mouse with the words “Vote for Hillary” written beneath it. One might consider this political message a joke, but in a world where Democrats indict Republican governors for “coercion of a public official” for using his legitimate veto power, you can see the danger of infringing the First Amendment in the manner prescribed by Udall.
What Speech Is Political, Anyway?
And how do we decide when money is being spent to campaign for or against a political candidate? If Saturday Night Live makes fun of the president, is it spending money to attack him? Is this illegal campaign spending? When is speech legitimate political satire, and when is it campaigning? The Democrat-controlled Federal Election Commission would probably say criticism of Obama is illegal campaign spending (because SNL costs money to produce), but criticism of George Bush is just satire. Do we really want politicians setting up self-serving guidelines for what is acceptable speech and what is not?
Everything Is Political
Potentially, all speech is political: “Hot day we’re having!” (global warming); “I can’t believe how lousy medical care is getting!” (Obamacare); “I am so glad that that business-owner in Oklahoma City shot that Muslim before he could behead the second victim!” (Second Amendment). You get the idea. So, write any of this down in your personal blog, or in a hand-out for a training or educational purpose, and you could run afoul of the new speech rules, because every piece of paper you print, technically, costs money.
The Democrats Are Telling Us Who They Are
Of course, none of this will pass muster with two-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the States. So why is this effort important? Because its sends a signal. It tells any and all Americans who are willing to pay attention that Democrats believe in government dictatorship. They are not champions of freedom, but far from it!
The Real Radicals
It is interesting to see just how radicalized the Democrat Party has become under Obama. Every single Democrat in the Senate is voting for this amendment. Republicans, wisely, refuse to have anything to do with amending the free-speech rights of Americans. The Republican idea is this: the remedy for bad or disagreeable speech is more speech, not infringement of the First Amendment. And it is no less than amazing that Democrats have been able, for so long, to call Republicans vicious names with impunity, claiming that they are “right-wing radicals” when, all along, it is Democrats who have truly been the radicals.
Remember the Constitution
Since when is it radical to uphold the Constitution? Whether you be a conservative-leaning independent voter, a libertarian, a tea-party patriot, or a so-called “establishment Republican,” the Democrat-controlled media will label you a “radical, right-wing nut-job” or something similar. Yet all that these people desire to do is to see their Constitution restored and protected. This is hardly radical.
What Democrats are proposing, in attempting to gut the First Amendment, is not only radical, but revolutionary—and not in a good way. Their revolution, were it to succeed, would be one that would create a top-down dictatorship of one party—a party comprised of elitist Obama Democrats.
There is only one accurate word to describe the Obama Democrats, and that word is “un-American.”
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com