Jun 202012

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed, will limit the political freedoms of Americans. The left is selling it as a way to dismantle Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision on campaign finance. That case prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The supreme ruler referenced it when he publicly ridiculed the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address, remember?

The Schiff amendment comes on the heels of a wonderful amendment proposed by Rep. Jim McGovern, (D-Mass), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 26 other Democrats and one Republican, called The People’s Rights Amendment. These buffoons, like Schiff,  have introduced legislation that attempts to alter the First Amendment. Why?

I’ll spare you the case references and other legal gibberish constantly used by the left to muddy the waters.

The fact is, for many decades Democrats had a fund-raising advantage over Republicans because they had unions subsidizing campaigns. Of the 15 largest campaign contributors in the last twenty-plus years, 9 are unions. Additionally, remove AT&T, the National Association of Realtors and Goldman Sachs, each of which plays both sides of the fence, and the list is now 9 unions within the top 12 political contributors.

The Citizen United case confirmed corporations can put skin into the campaign game. The problem for Democrats is they have an uncontrollable urge to bad-mouth industry. And because of this constant hen-pecking, they now see a lot of this new money going to support Republicans. Citizen United effectively leveled the playing field for political contributions. And of course, the liberal-socialist Democrats don’t like level playing fields. It’s understandable. They have an uphill battle. They can call it any of the endless pseudonyms they want  in hopes of disguising the political philosophy (lipstick on a pig and all that), but promoting socialism and communism isn’t looked upon kindly by the majority of Americans. It is a deeply flawed political philosophy that runs counter to everything America represents. They know without a rigged game, their days would be numbered.

So what do you do when you’re stacked deck is destroyed because of the American Constitution? Simple. You try to change the Constitution. And that brings us back to the two freedom restricting, anti-American, big brother constitutional amendments. Freedom restricting? You bet. Here’s an excerpt of which, Schiff is no doubt, particularly proud.

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent political campaign expenditures. Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.

So if this were to pass nothing will stop Congress (translation: the party in power) from imposing limitations on private campaign contributions. Let’s say Democrats control Congress. They can impose a $1000 or $500 limitation on contributions. And if one of their own was in a real tight race, heck, they could knock that down to what, $10 or $20 bucks? The political reality is that incumbents already have a huge advantage over challengers. Let the party in power have the ability to limit campaign contributions, thereby financially starving their opponent, and see how many challengers win.

The McGovern and Pelosi proposal is similar. It too, attacks the Constitution and political freedoms. As gravy, they want to declare that all corporate entities, including non-profits, “have no constitutional rights”. Consider this for a moment and the ramifications become clear.

Virtually all trade associations, religious institutions, newspapers, broadcasters, as well as businesses and charities are incorporated. Strip these entities of their rights and the government can not only squash political advocacy (AARP, Cato Institute, NRA or the Humane Society as examples) but it could seize property, regulate religion, and conduct searches at will. These entities would have no rights, after all. (continued)

Be Sociable, Share!

 Leave a Reply



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>