The Senate
Majority Leader is desperately trying to keep his job and maintain his “imperial” influence in the world’s erstwhile
“greatest deliberative body.” Part of Reid’s strategy is to support a constitutional amendment that would obliterate the First
Amendment, leaving its former liberties to the discretion of power hungry
Congressional regulators.
The amendment
would give Congress—one the nation’s most unpopular institutions—complete control over of the election
process in the name of “political equality.” The words to this proposal are as
unsurprising as they are disturbing. Congress could:
regulate the raising and spending of
money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including
through setting limits on--
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for
election to, Federal office; and
(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
The amendment
would not only overturn the despised (and misunderstood) Citizens
United v. FEC but
also Buckley
v. Valeo and
every other consequential campaign finance case in between. It would completely
abolish the citizenry’s ability to speak about elections and candidates except
within tightly controlled confines approved by Congress. It is in short, the
Anti-First Amendment.
Though no one
thinks it has any chance of ratification, its value lies in its brazen display
of totalitarianism. What of liberty and freedom when one has power to amass and
hold?
Reid’s boogeymen, Charles and David Koch, do speak to
those American values. Reid responds by lambasting them on the Senate floor; over 130 times this year alone.
Reid couches
his disdain for the Kochs as an affront to “political equality”: “Every
American should have the same ability to influence our political system.” Of
course, Mr. Reid himself has much more ability to “influence our political
system” than the multitude of labor unions that supply his political muscle and
ensure his electoral victories. One suspects he prefers it that way. And
perhaps it’s just a coincidence liberal fundraising solicitations mentioning
the Kochs are likely to raise three times more money than those that don’t.
Any doubts to
Reid’s motives should go no further than Tom Steyer. The billionaire hedgefunder actually is trying to “buy America” or at least his preferred
environmental policies. As he stated recently, green energy initiatives offer “a
chance to make a lot of money.” Of
course, unlike the Kochs who principally became wealthy supplying consumers a
product they want at a price they voluntarily pay, the green racket operates
differently. It depends not on market forces but government ones. It depends on
cronyism, backroom deals, and riders slipped in other bills with deliberately obfuscating
language. In short is the stuff of the Washington trade, goodies supplied only
with the blessing of people like Mr. Reid.
Retired
Justice John Paul Stevens supposedly inspired Mr. Reid to pursue this faux-quixotic
amendment. The former Justice has been making the media rounds with a new book, which proposes a number of fixes for
American democracy. He has one on campaign finance. In a little noticed
interview, Stevens was asked if under his proposal the government could ban
books containing political ideas. He looked pensively at the text—his own
text—and after a moment remarked, “Perhaps you could put a limit on
the times of publication or something . . . You certainly couldn’t totally
prohibit writing a book.”
Feel better? Citizens United was a 5-4 decision, Justice
Stevens wrote the dissent. There are many ways to describe an amendment that
authorizes a limitation on printing books, “majestic” isn’t one of them.
By Paul
Jossey
No comments:
Post a Comment