The House Democrats are busy crowing about HR 1, their campaign "reform" bill passed last week. That bill will never be enacted into law; it is highly unlikely that the Senate will even vote on it. But whether or not it becomes law, it is worth considering what the Democrats think is essential campaign finance reform.
Here's an example to consider. I live in Connecticut where our new governor is pushing for placing tolls on all the major highways. That boneheaded move has sparked outrage all across the state. Organizations to coordinate opposition to the tolls have sprung up rather spontaneously. These groups and raising money to hold rallies and to contact the legislators to fight the new toll proposal. It's a classic grassroots movement that has happened often in America. In that respect it's no different than the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter. So here's the question: should these groups be allowed to function on their own or should they be regulated by the federal government? Should a new group with a political agenda have to register, list all its donors, and comply with all the rules set by a regulatory body in DC? That is, in a nutshell, what the Democrats want. If Planned Parenthood wants to form a group to support abortion rights and to lobby for election of certain candidates, it will have to register, disclose donors, and meet complex regulations. If a pro-life group wants to do the same, it too will have to meet the same requirements. If an animal rights organization wants to oppose legislation regarding hunting in certain states, it would have to meet these rules too.
Take a moment and think about this. We have already seen the Obama administration weaponize the IRS for use against the Tea Party. Should a group of federal bureaucrats be allowed to "regulate" the political speech in America? What if the bureaucrats don't like that group; will they be even-handed? Will pro-life or pro-choice groups get battered with the criminal complaints that the Democrats allow under their bill for not following their new rules perfectly? There aren't even clear rules set forth; those will be set by the new bureaucracy set up by the bill.
This is not a free speech bill. This is not bringing clarity or transparency to political speech in the USA. This is a bill to undermine the First Amendment by giving the feds the power to regulate and limit the speech of individuals. It is an attempt to do exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.
In short, it is a constitutional abomination. No wonder the Democrats are so proud of it.
Here's an example to consider. I live in Connecticut where our new governor is pushing for placing tolls on all the major highways. That boneheaded move has sparked outrage all across the state. Organizations to coordinate opposition to the tolls have sprung up rather spontaneously. These groups and raising money to hold rallies and to contact the legislators to fight the new toll proposal. It's a classic grassroots movement that has happened often in America. In that respect it's no different than the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter. So here's the question: should these groups be allowed to function on their own or should they be regulated by the federal government? Should a new group with a political agenda have to register, list all its donors, and comply with all the rules set by a regulatory body in DC? That is, in a nutshell, what the Democrats want. If Planned Parenthood wants to form a group to support abortion rights and to lobby for election of certain candidates, it will have to register, disclose donors, and meet complex regulations. If a pro-life group wants to do the same, it too will have to meet the same requirements. If an animal rights organization wants to oppose legislation regarding hunting in certain states, it would have to meet these rules too.
Take a moment and think about this. We have already seen the Obama administration weaponize the IRS for use against the Tea Party. Should a group of federal bureaucrats be allowed to "regulate" the political speech in America? What if the bureaucrats don't like that group; will they be even-handed? Will pro-life or pro-choice groups get battered with the criminal complaints that the Democrats allow under their bill for not following their new rules perfectly? There aren't even clear rules set forth; those will be set by the new bureaucracy set up by the bill.
This is not a free speech bill. This is not bringing clarity or transparency to political speech in the USA. This is a bill to undermine the First Amendment by giving the feds the power to regulate and limit the speech of individuals. It is an attempt to do exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.
In short, it is a constitutional abomination. No wonder the Democrats are so proud of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment