S.J. Res. 19 - constitutional amendment to limit 1st amendment?

[Xpiatio]

well its happening:
"Senator Chuck Schumer has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited authority, to regulate political speech" - Sen Ted Cruz - R - Texas
http://news360.com/article/240430371
Bill Text - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.J.RES.19:
And of course Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is a co-sponsor.

list of  Senate co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 19, providing the list below, courtesy of the Library of Congress (alpha order by last name):
Tammy Baldwin (WI)
Mark Begich (AK)
Michael Bennet (CO)
Richard Blumenthal (CT)
Cory Booker (NJ)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Richard Durbin (IL)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Al Franken (MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Kay Hagen (NC)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Martin Heinrich (NM)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Angus King, Jr. (ME)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Edward Markey (MA)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Christopher Murphy (CT)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Harry Reid (NV)
John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
Bernard Sanders (VT)
Brian Schatz (HI)
Chuck Schumer (NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Udall (CO)
John Walsh (MT)
Elizabeth Warren (MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Ron Wyden (OR)

[birddseedd]

did you actually read it ?

[part deux]

did you actually read it ?

what are you suggesting?

[birddseedd]

It says nothing about speech. Its limitations on political donations. Which will help. Sortof. People will just donate through multiple companies to give the same amount.

[gryphon]

The SCOTUS has held that political donations are an expression of speech, and that limiting them is a prohibition of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - 08-205 (2010)

And  McCutcheon v. FEC where the SCOTUS struck down limits on federal campaign donations as a violation of free-speech rights.

That's why they want to change the Constitution, to make it constitutional.

With any of these laws, you'll want to pay attention to who it restricts and who it exempts.  They typically exempt groups who would be favorable to the liberals and progressives.

[FASBOLD]

The proposed amendment specifically says it is not to be construed to affect freedom of the press. It has no mention of speech, assembly, or religion being excluded under this amendment.

If they have to mention press, they should mention the others to remove ambiguity.

[part deux]

But it affects free speech.

I'm not happy with a few rich people able to sway entire elections, however, this is a very slippery slope.

[birddseedd]

I think the slippery slope is what it comes down to. I believe the intention is to stop a large corporations from effecting elections in their monitary favor.

however it is probably best to have it written in a little bit more clear as to prevent more issues for living citizens (not corporations)

[jgillmanjr]

Corporations are nothing more than a legal entity which is still run and ultimately funded by living individuals.

To limit what a corporation can do, especially when it's a constitutionally enumerated right, because it's a corporation ultimately is a restriction on the individual.

[gryphon]

I think the slippery slope is what it comes down to. I believe the intention is to stop a large corporations from effecting elections in their monitary favor.

however it is probably best to have it written in a little bit more clear as to prevent more issues for living citizens (not corporations)

No! 

Money is the voice of freedom.  It takes money to get your message out there (whatever that might be, say pro-2A) and combat the lies told by a political party or politician or put forth your proposed solutions or endorsement for politicians you support.  Corporations are an effective means of doing that.  As one person, you have very little power to place media ads in print or on TV, but as a contributor to a group, such as the "Don't Tread on Me Foundation for Truth, Justice, and the American Way," your contributions, together with mine and thousands of others, have that power.  These foundations are corporations and such--as is the NRA--that would be limited by these un-American changes in law.

You, alone, are no match for George Soros or Michael Bloomberg.

[gryphon]

Let me further add that Congress and the FEC have limited, or tried to limit, political speech that doesn't even endorse or campaign against a specific political candidate.  Groups that have advocated certain stances, say pro-2A, or even done nothing more than publish or hand out voting records, are violating campaign finance laws simply because they support 2A and argue that since, for example, a Democrat might be a strong proponent of gun-control and the Republican is not, that they are endorsing a vote for the Republican, even though no party or person is ever named.

[birddseedd]

I am no longer able to make an opinion on this subject.

[Shadow Bear]

'Free speech' should only apply when the 'listener' can clearly perceive who's mouth (or pocket) it is emanating from. Speech to sway public opinion must never be anonymous.

[TheQ]

'Free speech' should only apply when the 'listener' can clearly perceive who's mouth (or pocket) it is emanating from. Speech to sway public opinion must never be anonymous.

I'm not sure I agree. Read the actual text of 1A again and rethink.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

[birddseedd]

I won't disagree that where you spend your money is a form of speech or expression, heck i went to target simply because they refuse to kick people out of their property for owning guns.

but a decision needs to be made on when it ceases to be speech, and becomes an attempt on the super rich to effect the government outside of its original design, for their own personal financial gain.