WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2016 — In 2014, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid submitted a constitutional amendment for Senate consideration. It would give Congress power to regulate political speech paid for by “big money.”
It was in response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling, which declared the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional.
Reid’s measure failed to pass, and the Democrats lost control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections.
But a few weeks ago, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pledged that as president, she would push for the reintroduction of Reid’s measure to weaken the First Amendment’s prohibition against government regulation of free speech.
“The amendment would allow Americans to establish common sense rules to protect against the undue influence of billionaires and special interests and to restore the role of average voters in elections,” said Clinton.
It seems that when Democrats want to erode the inalienable rights of Americans as stipulated in the Bill of Rights—First Amendment religious and speech rights, or Second Amendment’s gun ownership rights—they do it in the name of “common sense.”
Whose common sense?
In the case of free speech, Hillary Clinton’s, that’s whose.
Most people forget that the incident that triggered the ruling in Citizens United centered on a documentary film, “Hillary: The Movie.” Produced by Citizens United, the film was intended as a pay-per-view release prior to the start of the 2008 Democratic primaries, when such politicking was prohibited under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The government argued before the high court that the law did not infringe on free speech because corporate entities could request an exemption to the draconian law’s restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the high court’s majority opinion, wrote:
“We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determination to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on the subject.”
Justice Kennedy included a brief description of “the subject” in his opinion, saying the film was meant “to inform the electorate that … the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her.”
In 2008, a freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Obama exercised his free speech right to convince Democratic primary voters to do just that.
Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, you have several films to enjoy this political season:
- “Hillary Clinton: The Movie” now available on YouTube.
- “Hillary Clinton’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” (playing in theaters across the nation).
- “Clinton Cash,” based on the bestselling book of the same name.
- “Clinton Email Scandal,” compiled by an enterprising chap on YouTube.
Enjoy these films while you can. If Clinton wins the White House and doddering old fools like Republican Sen. John McCain reach once again “across the aisle,” Democrats may change the U.S. Constitution to limit First Amendment free speech.
Our founding document would be altered to “make a more perfect union”—for the Clinton crime family.