I am not good at reading legal stuff either. The link you posted seems to indicate that this has to do with campaign finance and not political speech unless campaign finances can somehow be considered to be political speech.
I hope someone can come on here and explain why the National Right to Life is concerned about this.
Here is a version that replaces the tags with the actual formatting.
Reading it I suspect it is an attempt to limit corporate entities abilities to provide campaign finance. Many people did not like it when SCOTUS ruled that corporations could be considered as persons under campaign finance laws. I wonder if it would also be used as an end around to the recent decision to allow religious liberties to be extended to closely held companies (Hobby Lobby HHS). It does not specifically address it, but if the purpose it to allow legislators to define who is a person it w could be used to strip any individual rights from corporations.
In light of this statement,"The proposal would “empower incumbent federal and state lawmakers to restrict and criminalize speech that is critical of their actions, "I have to question just how reliable NRL is. This statement by them is no where in the bill. I hope those that give to them for the sake of standing against abortion understand their money is now going to weigh in on the morally neutral topic of campaign finance reform. Any reform which was enacted subsequent to this bill would still have to pass constitutional muster. Perhaps most Americans are content to live in an oligarchy of the rich, or perhaps they believe that foreign powers and hostile religions should be able come in and influence elections to their benefit. If not, then I do not understand how one can believe that there should be no regulation on how campaigns are financed.
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
This is carte blanche authority for Congress and the States to restrict or outlaw speech from those they don’t like. Specifically they can completely restrict the right of virtually any corporation or entity from political speech. Just because you don’t recognize the threat to free speech doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
This isn’t morally neutral. It is about restricting the speech of those they don’t like. Or do you think it is morally acceptable to stiffle speech?
And that hurdle would be VERY easy to do so, since this amendment is basically left open-ended for any and all regulation or control.
Strawman arguments and false arguments. Foreigners are already prohibitted (though that doesn’t stop the Democratic Party from taking foreign money). And the NRL hasn’t said a word about this. You should retract your accusation.
And the oligarchy of the rich would be less oppressive if the govt was smaller and less able to restrict and control the people. Maybe you should instead work to increase freedom instead of supressing it?
They already are regulated, overly regulated. No one is proposing no regulation at all. Another strawman argument. And funny enough, since our regulations have gotten more and more onerous, has the funding of campaigns and speech decreased or increased? Has there been more or less money in politics? Maybe you should look to the effects of policies you support instead of just the intentions.
NO, you DON’T! This Amendment would EXPLICITLY override the First Amendment. Just as the 21st Amendment completely overrode the 18th Amendment, this Amendment will override and negate the 1st Amendment when there is something that both cover.
Gee, chill of fix your CapLock. There is no Constitutional Amendment, which is the only way override the First Amendment. This editorial by NRL is total straw. It also has nothing to do with the right to life. It is pure political partisanship.