George Will…on the ‘Real’ extremists in American Politics, like NH Senator Jeanne Shaheen
The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible — by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings — with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers — as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.
…
Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed “reasonable” will surely serve incumbents’ interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.
As Mr. Will points out, ‘There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification.,” which means this is a political exercise for whom? It is for the Democrat base, the fools (and their subjects) associated with groups like the May Day PAC, NH Rebellion, and so on.
It is a left-wing message in a bottle. Progressive narrative as bait, hiding a great and angry hook, thrown out to tempt the low-information voting middle and the blissfully ignorant on either side who have or are willing to swallow (hook, line, and sinker) the Democrat narrative on money in elections. It is a Senatorial fishing expedition for those willing to become single-issue voters for a Democrat talking point they themselves refute in every election.
The lie is that Money is not speech. No? Find me a single candidate for elected office, preferably a Democrat, who believes they can reach voters with their speech sans money?
I’m betting on the crickets.
As for the fools chasing public funding of elections, they are just useful idiots doing the Democrats bidding, whether they know it or not. That aside, who among us , left or right, fancies the notion that they will be paying the freight on the opposition candidates narrative? They are lying if they say they would.
And we must consider NH Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who voted for the amendment, along with 47 Democrat colleagues. She knew it would never pass, but she voted for it anyway. We can only assume this was a vote based on ‘principle.’ She feels strongly about “the money is not speech” narrative. Strong enough to make a very public statement right before her re-election.”
Does Senator Shaheen feel strongly enough about this vote to return millions she has already received from big business, corporate PACs, incorporated non-profits, or from those groups that would have been impacted by the premise of her principled vote against “corporate” money in politics? If she feels that strongly she should set an example and return their money now.
Will she cough up millions to charity for all the third-party influence peddlers who have or will meddle for her in her election, or was the People’s Pledge just more political theater? Not something she’d do because it was right in her mind, but only if she could somehow use it to impair her opponent? Give her an advantage.
People of Principle follow their ‘beliefs’ even when no one is looking. I don’t think Jeanne Shaheen is that kind of person. She is a person of politics and power, not of principle.
We know this because the Senate vote to empower incumbents “to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech.” Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress…” was also the point of two letters to the IRS asking them to target, not just speech by political opponents, but the threat of future speech by future political opponents.
Senator Shaheen wants to control political speech. She has made a public spectacle of amending the Constitution to do so, regardless of the prohibition in the First amendment…”Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
When letters to the IRS and unconstitutional laws are not enough to silence your opponents on your terms, you try to amend the Constitution to silence them?
I guess we can expect the principled Senator Shaheen give back the Millions she has received from that incorporated non-profit EMILY’s List. They oppose what she has planned (which makes we wonder where their carve out is in her new vision?).
We know she wont give back a dime.
She has no objection to money as political speech or incorporated money as speech. She can’t. Her campaigns spends millions of dollars from incorporated entities to get her political “speech” to our eyes and ears. Without those millions she would have to go speak directly to her constituents, which a) we know she is afraid of and b) still requires money to accomplish.
This means that her concern is not truly for the effect money has on speech or politics. Her concern is over money and speech she cannot control.
This bill would give her and incumbent politicians a new measure of control, and she voted for it.
