Harry Reid has a problem. You see, there are people who think the Senate Majority Leader’s vision for the country is a bad one, and that he should be the leader of … well, anything other than a body with the power to tax, spend and regulate. Such views may be permissible if expressed in private, or to your seatmate on the train, but if you want to disseminate them far and wide, by purchasing advertising, for instance, that crosses the line for Harry and his fellow Democrats. They want to put a stop to it.
The problem is that pesky First Amendment. Combined with the Citizens United decision, it gives people the power to spend their money to transmit their ideas and concerns. The Koch brothers (whose name has been invoked by Reid on the Senate floor almost 300 times) are not relegated to just discussing the sorry state of our body politic with their friends and family, but are permitted to spend their money to make sure that you and I are aware that they think the country is being led in the wrong direction and therefore the leadership should be replaced. Hmmm…. What to do?
Well, Democrats this week advanced legislation to add a new amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that would allow him and his fellow travelers on Capitol Hill to decide how much political speech is too much. The goal, according to Reid, is “restoring freedom of speech for everyone in America.”
“The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves,” Reid said. “They must be looking down at this, and saying, ‘what in the world are they doing to our country?’ “ Indeed. It’s quite rare that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid makes a statement with which we can unequivocally agree, so lets recognize it when he does. Of course, the founders are in the dock precisely because of what Reid himself is doing, not as he thinks, those who oppose his attempt to gut fundamental First Amendment protections.
Harry Reid thinks that James Madison and his fellow framers didn’t really get the First Amendment right, and that he and his fellow Democrats have the good sense to fix it.
Apparently the problem is that Harry Reid doesn’t have enough power. And the problem is so big that it requires altering a fundamental tenet of our founding charter, The “Democracy for All” amendment gives Harry Reid Congress and the states the power to “set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”
Do you think you should have the same speech rights as a millionaire or billionaire? So does Harry Reid. He thinks you all should be able to spend the same, strictly limited amount on political speech. It’s been said that capitalism produces an unequal distribution of wealth, and communism an equal distribution of poverty. This proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution will guarantee us all an equally small voice in expressing our opinion on public policy and the politicians who direct it.
So what level of spending will be “reasonable”? For incumbents, no spending at all would be the policy most likely to insure their re-election. It’s so hard to fight off those upstart challengers who mock your Ritz Carlton lifestyle and challenge your unpopular positions. Better to limit them to campaigning door to door than make mass media buys. Incumbent protection is best served by strict campaign limits. Do you think it’s easier for a challenger to raise a thousand dollars from a thousand different people, or to find ten people to give a hundred thousand each? Both will total a million dollars, but implicit in this amendment is the assumption that large checks are inherently worse than small ones.
The total cost of the 2012 federal elections was about $6.2 billion, including races for President, the entire House of Representatives, and one third of the U.S. Senate. That’s about twice what Proctor and Gamble spends every year in hopes you will choose Bounty and Crest over Brawny and Colgate. Considering the impact of the decisions made by Congress and the President, including spending almost 4 trillion dollars, it really doesn’t seem like much at all.
Clearly Reid and his colleagues don’t think it’s reasonable to produce and air a documentary critical of Democrat candidates. That’s what was at issue in Citizens United. They wanted to air their documentary which was critical of Hillary. Will buying and installing yard signs be okay with Harry and friends? I’m sure Sen. Reid can be trusted to act in the best interests of the republic and only enact good legislation, and the Obama administration will only enact good rules. And leftists would be comfortable with George Bush and Newt Gingrich making the rules for what they could say, yes?
The last part of the proposed amendment says that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” So if a person is a credentialed member of the media like Rachel Maddow or Maureen Dowd, they are free to say and do whatever they like. If, on the other hand, they happen to be a casino owner, for instance, they must shut the hell up. If this thing passes, the value of anything considered “press” will skyrocket, because they will be a protected class with free speech, while everyone else will be at the mercy of whatever regulations Harry and friends think will help Harry.
This initiative makes Reid one of two things: a hack politician who is so indifferent or downright hostile to the constitution that he would propose this amendment in a cynical attempt to drive up leftist turnout by asserting that the Republicans, who will certainly block a vote on this, are in the pockets of big business…..or he actually believes what he is saying. One is only left to wonder which is worse.
