Chilling: Reid would back Constitutional amendment limiting free speech

Posted by: ST on May 15, 2014 at 11:53 am
Senator Harry Reid

His photo doesn’t appear next to the word ”fascist” in the dictionary, but it should.

He’s not just losing it. He has LOST it. Via BuzzFeed:

WASHINGTON — Frustrated by the “sewer” of modern American political campaigns, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday said that he would bring a constitutional amendment to the floor granting Congress the ability to set strict new limits on campaign contributions, warning he will force multiple votes if necessary to pass the measure.

“When I came to Congress, when you got money you had to list who you got it from, what their occupation was, address, and phone numbers if you had it. Then I saw things change. In 1998, [former Sen.] John Ensign and I ran against one another and we spent about $10 million in Nevada,” Reid told BuzzFeed during an interview in his Capitol office.

[…]

Things had changed for the good, he said, by 2004. “I felt so clean and pure with McCain-Feingold, which had come into being, it was wonderful. We were back where we should have been,” he said.

Then the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United ruling, Reid said, opening the flood gates to hundreds of millions of largely unregulated money to SuperPACs. “It was as if I had jumped into the sewer … it’s awful what has happened.”

Although a number of Democrats, most notably New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, have talked about passing a constitutional amendment to re-impose campaign finance restrictions, Reid had not been one of them — until now.

[…]

“It’s been tried before, we should continue to push this and it should become our issue. That really puts the Koch brothers up against it. We believe and I believe that there should be spending limits. We’re going to push a constitutional amendment so we can limit spending because what is going on today is awful,” Reid vowed, indicating that he’ll bring Udall’s measure to the Senate floor soon.

“We’re going to arrange a vote on it. We’re going to do it until we pass it because that’s the salvation of our country.”

Here’s a little tip: It’s not going to pass.  Absolutely positively will not. Has no chance. Reid is showboating here, hoping that not even his supporters grasp the full depth of what he is advocating – basically a Constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech of American citizens simply because they oppose the Democratic party’s agenda.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey breaks it down:

This is a scream of impotence, in more ways than one. First, SJ-19 has no more chance of passing out of Congress than does a bill amending the Constitution to forbid abortion. It takes two-thirds of both chambers of Congress (Article V) to send an amendment to state legislatures, and Reid won’t get to 60 in the Senate. The House won’t address it at all. Furthermore, it’s doubtful that even a majority of state legislatures would take it up; more of them are Republican than Democrat, and they’ve seen the malicious prosecution that results when putting this much power in the hands of partisans in the executive branch. Wisconsin just provided an excellent example of that.

So this is just cheap political theater in an attempt to demonize two particular donors who just happen to oppose Reid’s agenda. Democrats are about to climb onto that bandwagon that proclaims that Americans can’t be trusted to discern political arguments and that the governing class should decide who gets to participate in politics. If that’s the only strategy Reid has left for the midterms, well … Democrats are in bigger trouble than we realized.

But just imagine if he had the votes in both chambers to do this.   Think about it.  And then imagine if the roles were reversed and this was a Republican engaged in this level of grandstanding, and how the media would howl with outrage that Republicans were taking their attempts at “silencing the opposition” to a “whole new frightening level.”

Honestly, I’ve always figured Reid to be a complete snake – but this shameless attempt at basically burning the First Amendment to the Constitution takes it to a whole new disturbing level, and should chill everyone to the bone … including even the people who vote for him time and time again to represent them in Washington, DC.  But I won’t hold my breath, because that would require a consideration of citizens other than themselves, as well as a recollection of the principles upon which this country was founded – and a majority of Nevadans have repeatedly demonstrated every time they vote to keep fascists like Reid in office how little they care about the devastating consequences of their vote, not just on their state, but the country as well.

(Hat tip: Memeorandum)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 Responses to “Chilling: Reid would back Constitutional amendment limiting free speech”

Comments

  1. Phineas says:

    Reid knows he has nothing substantive for the election, so this is another attempt to gin up base voters, throw them their equivalent of red meat. It shows how cynical and base he is, however, that he is willing at all to play with basic liberties like that. Or he’s too politically ignorant to understand the implications of his proposal… or he’s just senile. Which is it, Harry.

    Side note: the People’s Republic of Vermont (you know, the state that keeps reelecting Socialist Bernie Sanders) has become the first state to issue a call for a constitutional convention to consider an amendment that would do just what Harry wants. No chance for now or in the medium term that they’ll be joined by 33 other states, but it’s something to keep a watch on.

    The Left just hates free speech.

  2. annieoakley says:

    truthrevolt.org has a Bill Whittle piece about Gaslighting. Seems to be what the entire .gov is all about.

  3. Chilling… but not surprising.

  4. Steve Skubinna says:

    The Dems have gotten fed up with having their a**es handed to them every time they make a run on the Second Amendment, they probably figure go after a different one for a change.

    Anyway, the First Amendment is definitely obsolete. The Framers never envisioned radio, television, the internet, cell phones, Twitter, Facebook. The 1A specifically states “the press” therefore it applies solely to the owners of mechanical printing presses. There’s no need for any citizen to own a word processing program capable of churning out hundreds of words per minute, such technology must be kept safely in the hands of the government.

  5. Drew the Infidel says:

    If there are to be limits on freedom of expression then it should start with Reid, as in STFU.

  6. Carlos says:

    And we all know that, without even a smidgeon (there’s that word again!) of doubt, Creepy Harry is far more brilliant than ANY of the framers of our system of government ever thought of being…