Would Democrats Amend Constitution to Stop the Koch Brothers?

By Byron York
May 19, 2014


It's no longer news when Majority Leader Harry Reid takes to the floor of the Senate to denounce the Koch brothers. But most Americans probably don't know that Reid and many of his Democratic colleagues now want to amend the U.S. Constitution in far-reaching ways to put an end to the conservative billionaires' political influence.

"The shadowy Koch brothers are attempting ... a hostile takeover of American democracy," Reid charged recently. "No one should be able to pump unlimited funds into a political campaign."​

Reid urged his fellow lawmakers to support a proposed constitutional amendment, written by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall and co-sponsored by 40 of the Senate's 55 Democrats, that would give Congress the right to regulate all political contributions and all spending of any kind in all federal elections. (It would also give states the power to do the same in state elections.) The Supreme Court has held such far-reaching restrictions to be unconstitutional, which is why Reid wants to take the extreme step of changing the nation's founding document.

"Amending our Constitution is not something we take lightly," Reid said. "But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced."

The Udall amendment is brief. This is the heart of it:

"Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including 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 grant incredible power to Congress: the authority to regulate every dollar raised and every dollar spent by every campaign and every outside group in every federal race in America. It would do the same for non-monetary, or "in-kind" contributions -- that is, when a person or organization contributes goods or services to a campaign. If Reid had his way, the U.S. Constitution would include the phrase "in-kind equivalents."

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://townhall.com/columnists/byro...-to-stop-the-koch-brothers-n1840402/page/full


Apparently the Honorable Mr. Reid has been smoking a product that has yet to be legalized in the State of Nevada or Washington D.C. Does Reid and the rest of his Progressive cabal really believe that the opposition and the American people would allow this to occur? Obviously this is an attempt to rankle the opposition and crack down on their adversaries. I agree with the esteemed Byron York who states, "Is any temporary partisan advantage worth such a radical step"?

 

I think I signed this already, but I hadn't realized it was this totalitarian. If I had, I might have sent money.

 

By: DrJohn
19 May 14


democrats long to restrict free speech and have made it crystal clear, exploring every possibility to shut down conservatives’ expression under the guise of something noble. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts proposed hunting down practitioners of speech he would deem “hate speech.” It was so ridiculous that it was labeled “dangerous.” (http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...erts_markey_proposal_may_threaten_free_speech)

U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey wants the government to study and recommend ways to stop the Internet, TV and radio from “encouraging hate crimes,” but First Amendment advocates say the bill is a menace to free speech.

“This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate, arguing even hate speech is protected absent a crime. “It is not up to Sen. Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what speech is, and is not, acceptable.”​

The demented Harry Reid wants to amend the Constitution to clamp down on free speech:
(http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=965fcdc9-21b1-46c2-9d84-d5a369007d90)

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and longtime defender of First Amendment rights, today slammed Senate Democrats’ continued efforts to intimidate and limit the free speech rights of American citizens after the Senate Democratic Leadership again attacked conservative Americans on the Senate Floor:

“How ironic that Senate Democrats are using the platform of the ‘world’s greatest deliberative body’ to seek to undermine the First Amendment free speech rights of other Americans with whom they disagree. As I outlined in a speech on the Senate floor last week, the White House and its Democrat allies in Congress have launched a concerted effort to stifle speech and trample on one of the most fundamental rights that Americans possess. ​

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://floppingaces.net/2014/05/19/your-obama-internet-id-is-waiting/

IMHO, 'Democrats' are attacking not just Americans on several fronts as individuals and groups, including our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. We as free individuals will not accept subjugation by the State or servitude to the State. Will they succeed? That is the big question.

 

The Kock brothers are not "conservatives".

 

Limits on campaign finance contributions and full public disclosure of same are a good idea.

Teddy Roosevelt thought so.

I don't understand why modern conservatives don't.

 

Im RW and I think its a great idea - corporatism is not capitalism! It could be limited to something almost anyone can afford - like $5 per vote. Or better yet, no donations at all with each party allocated a certain amount of funding based on their previous vote percentage to campaign with (encouraging smaller parties)

 

Well, the Koch brother are. Far right spectrum, but still conservative.

 

If by conservative you mean greedy destroyer, then yes.

 

Conservatives "conserve" a rigid ideology, and pretty much nothing else.

The best at anything should be allowed to subjugate all others, otherwise we have inferior everything.

 

Agreed in concept. We can work out the specifics.

We should have an open, level, and transparent system.

Instead, we have an opague system that is money driven.

The money aspect of it is getting far worse more rapidly than most people think it is.

We see the big money donors like the Koch's et al buying government.

We see a Supreme Court accepting the arguments of Steve Bopp, that democracy should be for sale.

But this is happening on far more than a national level.

It has even permeated small local elections.

The barrier to entry for even small local offices like School Board or County or Town Council is in the tens of thousands of dollars now. My local sherrif told me that he expects to (and needs to) raise $175,000 for his campaign.

No private individual can raise that kind of money from a group of supporters without making deals, and even fewer can afford to self finance. It's not unususal now for many local part time elected offices to cost more in campaign financing than the job actually pays.

This is a fundamental threat to our democracy, and it has little to do with ideology.

To be sure, the GOP is vigorously defending it on a national level, because the party thinks the benefits accrue to them (athough election results don't bear that faith out).

But it is a pervasive national problem, and it is rotting our foundation.

 

I'm honestly fine with it.

Heck the fairest way to do it might be to force all campaign donations to be pooled and then split evenly between candidates, rather than limiting the amount that can be donated. That way, no one has the most money, and as such each candidate has equal opportunity to make their case.

Course none of this would be necessary if people weren't so stupid that they actually fell for brain-dead attack ads.

 

They're Self Identified as Liberatarian, Via John Birch Sociaty.

 

I find the question amusing. That Democrats would attempt to amend a document they have so little respect for.

 

That's an interesting idea.

I'm not sure how it would work, but it's interesting.

It would take the big money out of politics right away.

Everyone from teh Koch's to local real estate developers would stop writing checks if they couldn't be sure what their money was going to buy.

 

I like it!

Maybe place a little restriction on the ads themselves: Candidates can only run ads in the media that support their own platform, not to attack their opponents. Only during face-to-face debates can you directly attack your opponents, where they have equal time for rebuttal.

 

I believe true Capitalists should not have a problem with capital, even in politics.

 

In a democracy, where people own property and are free to spend money as they choose, why in the world would anyone want to restrict how much of person's own money they are able to spend on anything? It's their money! They should be free to do with it as they please, and let God be the moral judge.

 

Capitalism =/= Crony Capitalism

 

One should also wonder why the democrats don't either. Remember, bad money is money funding stuff you don't like. Reid is a money man and just wants his money to prevail.

 

I also believe we should be getting better solutions at lower cost, with our "adversarial, two party system."

 

Let them waste all their cash and put people to work. We will still end up with two pathetic choices but at least someone will benefit from their lack of brains.

 

In purely private transactions I agree. But when you start mixing public officials into the mix, I must object, because they have more power than the rest of the citizens and as such private influences on them beyond the by-definition equal influence of one-man-one-vote skew things dangerously towards the interests of individual people or small groups.

 

I believe this dilemma may have some correlation to the actual solutions our elected representatives have.

 

Nonsense.

 

ok. the ones who resort to the fewest fallacies should make the most money.