Abolition Of The First Amendment, Redux

A few months ago, I made a short post, "Democrats Propose Amendment To Gut Free Speech."

Since almost nobody actually reads this blog, it was a rather monumental occurrence for someone to actually comment. The comment, was, sadly, the sloganeering soundbite "Uh huh; over in the real world, money is not free speech."

This is so disappointing. Not only because it's obviously false, but because the poster (who I have encountered elsewhere) clearly considers himself an intelligent, enlightened, right-thinking liberal.

Once upon a time, free speech was a liberal no-brainer. You were for it:

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire

But this silly "money is not speech" meme seems to have substituted for actual thought in an alarmingly large segment of the portion of the population that considers itself liberal.

I noticed today that noted right-wing hate group, the ACLU, agrees with me.

The ACLU drafted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee strongly opposing the Udall Amendment, for all the reasons that are absurdly obvious to anyone who has read the amendment and given it the slightest thought.

Of course money is speech. It takes money to reach people with your speech. The bill would allow complete regulation not only of campaign contributions, but of all funds spent in support of or opposition to candidates.

The ACLU letter goes into great detail. I encourage you to follow the link.

The grant of power to infringe speech is draconian and vast. The ACLU lists some obvious examples:

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is the 28th Amendment:

• Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office;
• Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change denier”;
• Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party; 
• A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform; 
• A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors; 
• A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions; and
• Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats).

Such examples are not only plausible, they are endless.