How Alexander and Corker voted on the resolution to amend the Constitution to partially repeal the 1st Amendment.

Yesterday I reported on a bill that advanced in the Senate that would partially repeal the First Amendment protection of Free Speech.  The bill would essentially say that only individuals had freedom of speech, not corporations.  This would make it permissible for the government to order a publisher to stop publishing a book or a distributor of a movie to stop showing a movie or Amazon or Barnes and Noble to stop selling a book.  It would essentially gut the First Amendment.

The bill had advanced in the Senate by a vote of  79-18 on Tuesday. That was a vote on cloture on the Motion to Proceed. Both Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker voted "Aye," or voted for Cloture. “Cloture”means to end debate so that an up-or-down vote can be taken. A vote in favor is a vote to end debate and move to a vote on the issue itself, while a vote against is a vote to prolong debate or to filibuster. I have already had a couple people point out that Alexander and Corker voted "Aye."

Alexander and Corker did vote "Aye" as did other Republicans such as Jeff Sessions and Marco Rubio. For those of you who might not know, no one would call Jeff Session and Marco Rubio liberal Republicans. Twenty-five Republicans voted "Aye" and only 18 voted "nay."

That vote was a procedural vote on the "motion to proceed."  Today another closure vote was taken on the resolution itself. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker voted "nay." That was a vote against cutting off debate. That was a vote for a filibuster. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker voted the same way as  40 other Republicans. The vote on today's closure motion was 52 Democrats voting "yea," (for ending debate) and one Democrat not voting, and 42 Republicans voting "nay," (voting against cutting off debate) and three Republicans not voting. The two independents in the Senate voted with the Democrats. The motion to cut off debate failed.

Why only 18 Senators voted for a filibuster at the very first opportunity, I don't know, but the very next vote on the  resolution was a also a vote to filibuster and Alexander and Corker voted to filibuster. Maybe they thought a filibuster on the resolution itself was strategically wiser than a filibuster on a motion to proceed. I don't know enough about the rules of the Senate to know why most Republicans voted "Aye" on the motion to proceed.  Often there are numerous procedural votes on a bill before voting on the bill itself.  If anyone uses that first vote to claim Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Jeff Session, and Marco Rubio and 14 other republicans voted to repeal the First Amendment, they are being disingenuous.

Top Stories

Congress moves to repeal the First Amendment's free speech protection.

This is not a joke or some rumor spread on Facebook or a distortion.  Congress really has taken a big step to repeal part of the first amendment. You may have not heard of this because the mainstream media is completely ignoring it.  Today the Senate voted 79-18 to advance the bill. It was a vote on “cloture”, which means to end debate so that an up-or-down vote can be taken.  Here is the text of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.    

Section 2.Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.          

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press. 

What is behind this is an attempt by Democrats to over turn the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. In Citizens United the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations. That ruling also extents the  freedom to labor unions and other associations.

In 2002 Congress had passed the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited corporation, including non-profit corporations, from making independent expenditures on "electioneering communications" which was defined as communications which mentions a candidate by name within 90 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. In 2008 Citizens United, a 501(c)4 conservative group, wanted to air a documentary, Hillary, that was critical of  Hillary Clinton and they wanted to advertise the film during television broadcasts within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. They were prohibited from doing so by the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United took the case to court and lost and appealed the lower court decision against them to the Supreme Court and won.

Most liberals think this was a terrible ruling and corporations should be prohibited from engaging in political speech. To critique the Supreme Court's decision they frame the issue as the court having said corporation are people and have the same rights as people.

One of the arguments made by attorneys for Citizens United is that a Michael Moore documentary showing at the time, Fahrenheit 9/11, also was political speech.  Fahrenheit 9/11 wove various conspiracy theories involving George W. Bush and alleged he had ties to the Taliban and advanced the theory that 9-11 was an inside job. The documentary also expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush. The Federal Election Commission had found some distinction that permitted the showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 but not Hillary. Justices seemed to be persuaded that if one could be banned, so could the other. Justices pondered if under McCain-Feingold the FEC had the power to ban books if they advocated defeat of a candidate and were distributed by a corporation or a Union. Most books are published by corporations. If you get a downloaded book on Kindle then that is being distributed by a corporation.  If people have First Amendment rights but the government can ban speech by corporations, then the First Amendment is a pretty empty right.

The Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech by limiting of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions, and that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications. The ruling did not permit corporation to contribute to political campaigns or do a lot of other things people have claimed the ruling did.

For those who don't know what it says, here is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The proposed amendment would repeal the freedom of speech protections guaranteed in the First Amendment. Section two of the proposed amendment would allow the government to abridge freedom of speech if that speech was distributed by corporation.  Section 3 is meaningless because if only individuals and not corporations have Freedom of the Press, then the government could shut down newspapers if they were corporate owned, as most are.

The proposed amendment probably will not go far.  It would have to pass both houses of Congress and would have to go before the people and be approved by 3/4 of the states. I don't think there is any way the House of Representatives will pass this bill as long as Republicans hold the majority. Still, it is frightening. Many politicians will want to say they voted for campaign finance reform and they voted to "take the money out of politics." Many people will be persuaded by the argument that "corporations are not people" and they will see it as a way to defeat the Koch brothers. For a public of low-information voters who get their news from the Colbert Report and SNL and have not been grounded in an understanding of the founding principles of our County, this may have appeal. I don't have the faith in the wisdom of the American people that I once had.
 
We can expect the Democrat Party and various progressive groups to push hard to get this bill passed. I will not be surprised if a memorializing resolution is not passed by our own Metro Council urging passage of the bill.  MoveOn is already mobilizing their forces to promote the amendment and using it to raise money. In an email received today MoveOn says:

Wow—this is huge. Last night, the Senate voted 79-18 to advance a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The next step is a vote Thursday.

We're getting ready to launch a huge accountability campaign, going after senators who vote the wrong way. wrong way. And we won't stop until Citizens United is repealed.

This is momentous. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity. 

It's nothing short of amazing that Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans didn't block this entirely—as they've done with nearly every other priority issue of most Americans, like the minimum wage and student debt. 

We've built enough grassroots pressure that they couldn't squash this. McConnell is trying to make lemonade out of this—he claims that he welcomes the debate. But 80 percent of American oppose Citizens United.

It seems as if America is going down the tubes right before our eyes.  Many people see rights as simply impediments to the popular will. This is a bold move to substantially remake America.  May God help us preserve our Republic.

 

Check back for a report on how our Senators and Representatives voted.

Top Stories

War on First Amendment Escalates

By Rick Manning

The First Amendment is a pesky thing to politicians.  It allows, nay encourages, the exact kind of diverse political speech that those in power loathe.  Born out of the legacy of the Revolutionary War pamphleteers and their radical thoughts of freedom, today these liberty lovers take the form of citizen journalists utilizing the Internet to push ideas, advocate, report and uncover stories that aren’t being told, afflicting the powerful and holding them accountable.  This has been at the heart of press freedom, not the corporate media empires that are often little more than government propaganda machines.

Now, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), not content to just continue her long running attempt to put a dagger into the right to keep and bear arms, is leading the charge to create a federal government sanctioned journalist licensing system that threatens the First Amendment as well.

Her Orwellian titled “Free Flow of Information Act of 2013”, which is also known as the “media shield bill” has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is expected to gain the votes necessary to get out of the Senate.  Proponents of the bill, are advocating that journalists be licensed by the federal government so that they can be protected from potential prosecution from a government insisting that their confidential sources be revealed.

In a scorching legal rebuke to Feinstein, Senators Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and John Cornyn argue vehemently against the law in a Minority View report writing,

“The freedom of the press does not discriminate amongst groups or individuals—it applies to all Americans. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, it was not intended to be limited to an organized industry or professional journalistic elite. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 (1972) (the ‘‘liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods. Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right[.]’’); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (‘‘The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets.  . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.’’).

The Founders recognized that selectively extending the freedom of the press would require the government to decide who was a journalist worthy of protection and who was not, a form of licensure that was no freedom at all. As Justice White observed in Branzburg, administering a privilege for reporters necessitates defining ‘‘those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege.’’ 408 U.S. at 704 That inevitably does violence to ‘‘the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.’’ Id.

The First Amendment was adopted to prevent—not further—the federal government licensing of media. See Lovell, 303 U.S. at 451 (striking an ordinance ‘‘that . . . strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship.  The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor.’’).

But federal government licensing is exactly what the Free Flow of Information Act would create. The bill identifies favored forms of media—‘‘legitimate’’ press—by granting them a special privilege.  That selective grant of privilege is inimical to the First Amendment, which promises all citizens the ‘‘freedom of the press.’’ See Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 704 (‘‘Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right[.]’’) (emphasis added). It also threatens the viability of any other form of press. The specially privileged press will gain easier access to news. That will tip the scales against its competitors and make it beholden to the government for that competitive advantage. A law enacted to protect the press from the state will, in fact, make that press dependent upon the federal government— anything but free.”

Feinstein’s proposed licensing law might seem innocuous if not for the fresh stench of federal government targeting of conservative groups through the IRS, the Federal Communications Commission’s recent attempts to monitor news rooms, the spying on Associated Press reporters by Obama’s Department of Justice to gain access to their sources and most recently, the announced giveaway of First Amendment protections for those who use the Internet by the U.S. Commerce Department all of which serve as recent examples where this Administration has proven their enmity to dissent.

Feinstein’s bill, when coupled with the U.S. government’s attempt to turn the Internet over to international control, represents a turning point in the relationship between the federal government and the free flow of information in the modern world.

Under the Obama Administration’s proposal to give control of the Internet to unspecified international sources, citizen journalists will necessarily lose their First Amendment shield of protection from censorship.  A censorship that is likely to first find its form in blocking ideas inimical to the unelected, unaccountable, unknown new Internet governing body’s group think.  Ideas that are deemed “dangerous”, “hateful” or “offensive” to some arbiter of worldwide political correctness will disappear from the Internet as Internet Protocol addresses of “offending” parties simply vanish.
Unlicensed political dissent, a critical component to the Web’s democratization of information that scares the elite who cling to power, is equally threatened by Feinstein’s attempt to create a non-protected class of journalists.  The local blogger who has a buddy who reveals corruption at City Hall deserves the same right to be able to protect sources as the Washington Post reporter who dutifully regurgitates the latest Obama Administration planned Friday afternoon leak.

The same whistle blower’s identity should be protected whether he or she talks to NetRightDaily.com, TalkingPointsMemo, or the Los Angeles Times.

Failure to convey the same First Amendment protections to all people, whether they are paid or not for their activities, strikes at the heart of the basis of our nation’s most precious freedoms, and Congress should reject the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.

Rick Manning @rmanning957) is the vice president of public policy and communications for Americans for Limited Government. Reprinted with permission.

Top Stories

Bo Mitchell Accosts Newspaper Publisher Candidate Attempts to Block Newspaper Delivery

Nashville, Tennessee (Nov. 5, 2012)  --- Bo Mitchell, city councilman and candidate for Tennessee’s State House of Representatives in District 50, attempted to physically block the delivery of a local newspaper in the Bellevue area today because he was not happy with the contents.

“He screamed at us, shook the paper at us and called it ‘trash’,” says Larry Crim, publisher of The Nashvillian. “Apparently, Bo Mitchell doesn’t understand freedom of the press. This newspaper was fine with him when he placed an ad in it, but now that there is a news item on his opponent, he’s threatening my staff and me.”

At issue is an article published about a letter that is circulating in District 50. The newspaper reports in the subject article that Mitchell's opponent, Williamson, has stated that the letter "is already forgery and mail fraud. If the money for this letter is traced to my opponent or anyone acting on his behalf, it’s also a clear violation of campaign finance law."

According to Crim, Mitchell was "extremely upset about this coverage of his opponent's claims and tried to physically block the newspaper containing this allegation from his opponent from being circulated in Bellevue and other areas."

The letter, signed by one “Glenda R. Williams” contains negative accusations about Mitchell’s opponent, Charles Williamson. The negative campaign piece is very similar to comments made in direct mail pieces by the Mitchell campaign against Charles Williamson. The state election commission has been unable to verify that anyone named Glenda R Williams is registered to vote in District 50.

“We contacted Mr. Mitchell when we received the press release and gave him 40 hours to comment,” Crim says. “We received no response. When someone hides from the media, you have to wonder if the accusations might be true.”

Crim says that Mitchell attempted to block the way with his truck as Crim attempted to deliver newspapers to homes in Mitchell’s Bellevue neighborhood, and threatened the newspaper man.

“He said, ‘Go ahead and keep circulating these and see if it doesn’t cause trouble for you,’” Crim notes.

The Nashvillian, which was launched in 2010, is a free, non-partisan newspaper, covering stories of general interest with a focus on political news and information. The current issue includes a business story on an area wholesaler, a column on environmentalism, and several stories on local candidates both Republican and Democrat.

“The incident of course concerns our newspaper, free press, and my own circulation of information concerning my federal candidacy and that of others when you have a public official threatening or attempting to block a newspaper containing these items from being freely circulated,” Larry Crim says.

 

Top Stories

Martha Coakley staffer attacks repoter.

After leaving her DC lobbyist fundraiser, Coakley fails to answer a question as to whether she stands by her comments that terrorists are not in Afghanistan. Coakley simply responds by asking if there are any more questions. When McCormack tries to follow up with Coakley, he is attacked by a member of Coakley's entourage and thrown to the ground as Coakley looks on. After he gets up, McCormack is attacked again, and not allowed to pass.

Top Stories