The
introduction of the so-called Political
Equality Amendment marks the first instance in American history where
Congress has put forward a serious proposal to roll back a portion of the Bill
of Rights, according
to former FEC Chairman Don McGahn. By introducing this amendment, Senate
Democrats have effectively admitted that what they want to do is
unconstitutional: restrict campaign finance dollars. As discussed in a previous
post,
the proposed amendment empowers Congress to regulate campaign fundraising and
spending in federal elections and it gives state legislatures the authority to
regulate state races.
Three
panelists examined the potential impacts of this amendment’s ratification at
yesterday’s Heritage Foundation panel titled “Amending
the First Amendment: Silencing Free Speech?”
As Heritage
Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky observed, the
Supreme Court has ruled that campaign dollars are speech. The proposed amendment
would make the Supreme Court’s decisions in McCutcheon, Citizens United, and
Buckley obsolete. He illustrated these concepts by explaining that it cost
money to print Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.
The proposed
amendment also creates many questions about the implication of its ratification.
Will the
amendment empower Congress to prohibit a labor union from communicating with
its members about a candidate during an election season? Could it prohibit the
NRA from sending a voter guide to its members? Would this amendment permit Congress
to regulate a pastor’s sermon from the pulpit if she wishes to speak on
politically relevant issues? Can Congress use this amendment to ban bloggers
from writing on key issues? Can these regulations be speech selective? The
panelists seem to agree that indeed this broadly worded proposal would empower
Congress to regulate each of these circumstances.
As von
Spakovsky notes, the proposed amendment would give Congress the power to limit
the spending of individual donors. In an attempt to promote fairness, Senate
Democrats have ignored the unintended consequences of ratifying such an amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment