+ - Congressional Democrats Propose Amending the Const-> 4
Submitted
by
hessian
hessian writes "UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh runs down the free speech-crushing consequences of HJR 90, a proposed constitutional amendment backed by House Democrats including Reps. Theodore Deutch (Fla.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), and Alcee Hastings (Fla.), which would forbid “for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes” from “making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.” As Volokh explains, this would be bad news indeed at places like the New York Times Company:
Nearly all newspapers, TV stations, cable networks, and rations (except of course for nonprofits such as NPR) are organized as corporations or other entities established for business purposes. Under section 3, they “shall be prohibited” from making expenditures “in any election of any candidate ... or the vote upon any ballot measure.” Since to write or print or broadcast anything, newspapers, networks, and broadcasters must spend money, this would ban — not just authorize Congress to ban, but itself ban — editorials supporting or opposing a candidate or a ballot measure."
Link to Original Source
Nearly all newspapers, TV stations, cable networks, and rations (except of course for nonprofits such as NPR) are organized as corporations or other entities established for business purposes. Under section 3, they “shall be prohibited” from making expenditures “in any election of any candidate
Link to Original Source
do yourself a favor. (Score:2)
and read the bill before posting a corporate shill's fear mongering.
"`Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press."
covering elections is part of the freedom of the press, thus the bill will not prevent anyone from npr to faux news from doing what they are doing now.
No, you do us a favor and read it yourself (Score:2)
That corporate shill is a famous constitutional lawyer. When he says there is a lot of ambiguity on that proposed amendment, he's worth listening to, and name calling is how you avoid the real issue.
That real issue is trying to define corporate speech such that media giants like the New York Times can publish political editorials all they want while media giants like Fox News can't. There is no bright line between the two.
Look at that part you quoted -- there's tons of wiggle room in there for the governm
The devil... (Score:2)
...is, as always, in the details.
This amendment is an attempt to undo the "Citizens United" ruling that lets corporations spend unlimited, unaccounted for (as far as where it actually came from) money on "political speech".
They're trying to address the problem of how to keep big money from being able to drown out opposing viewpoints (free speech doesn't mean much if nobody hears it), which means they need to craft a careful balancing act between restraint of, and protection of, the right to free speech and
Easy fix: public financing (Score:3)
Or say that candidates may only accept contributions from registered voters in the candidates district. I may contribute to people running for only 4 offices: one house seat in my congressional district , two senate seats in my state and the president.