EPTNow, we have members of both the House and Senate announcing they are fed up with being publicly criticized on television by the American people. They demand the right to silence those who disagree with them.
Towards that end they have proposed this constitutional amendment:
Proposed Constitutional Amendment
+ Show Spoiler +
Article
Section 1. The Congress shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to a federal office in the United States and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for federal office in the United States.
Whenever Congress should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the United States.
Whenever Congress should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the United States, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the United States.
Section 2. Each of the several States shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the State and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for public office or plebiscite in the State.
Whenever a State should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the State.
Whenever a State should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the State, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the State.
Section 3. No person who is not a citizen of the United States, association of persons not citizens of the United States, foreign governments, or persons acting as agents thereof may contribute funds or donate in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the United States or otherwise expend funds or donate in-kind equivalents in a manner intended to influence the outcome an election for public office or plebiscite in the United States.
The Congress shall have exclusive power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation.
Section 4. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Previous Thread where I discussed Citizen's United
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=270504
The first gross violation of an individuals rights has to do with outright banning non citizens from spending money in a way that might influence an election.
If some migrant laborer writes and publishes a pamphlet critical of a corrupt local politician are we really going to declare he has violated the constitution by exercising what were formerly his free speech rights? Free speech do not just apply to citizens any more than the right not be murdered applies to only citizens.
Furthermore this is all a distraction. These politicians do not care about foreigners criticizing them. They are worried about being criticized by Americans and are trying to use foreigners as Bogey-men to scare Americans into giving up their rights.
Under this amendment if Ban Ki-Moon or Kofi Anan or Tony Blair write and a publish a book that criticizes an American politician, then risk arrest the next time they visit the UN in New York.
What about Corporations? Almost every single corporation is included including all American TV stations and most newspapers.
Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly could be kicked off the air if they criticized a politician.
If a politician rapes a woman during a campaign she could not pay for an infomercial to make the rape allegation without Congress's say so.
It won't take congress long to set up a truth commission so that unless such allegations can be proven no money can be spent on such public accusations.
Televised debates would be impossible. A multinational Corporation like GE (owns NBC) would not be allowed to spend large sums of money to host a nationally televised debates between candidates when the whole goal of such a debate is to inform the voters and therefore influence the election.
This proposed amendment is a repeal of free speech in its worst form.
They have taken the most important part of the the most important amendment to the bill of rights and turned it on its head.
Instead of Americans having a right to political speech, it will instead be politicians who have absolute control on all political speech.
