NorthIowaToday.com

Founded in 2010

News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the Entire North Iowa Region

U.S. Senate says “no” to Constitutional amendment on campaign donation limitations, citing free speech

U.S. Congress
U.S. Congress

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate this week shot down a Constitutional Amendment which would have granted Congress and the states the power to regulate or limit the raising and spending of money and in-kind donations with respect to federal and state elections.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said that the amendment, which he says “would have altered the Bill of Rights and prevented free speech,” failed on a cloture vote of 54-42.  Cloture votes require 60 votes for passage.  In addition, a constitutional amendment needs 67 votes to pass the Senate.

Charles Grassley
Charles Grassley

“It should worry everyone that there are 54 Senators who think that less free speech is better.  Our government is stronger when more citizens participate in the electoral process.  That includes exercising the right of political free speech and exercising the right to vote.  Free speech creates a marketplace of ideas and fosters participatory democracy, allowing an educated citizenry to cast votes to elect its leaders,” Grassley said.

“This would have been the first time in 227 years that the Bill of Rights has been amended,” Grassley said.  “It’s a slippery slope.  When you start amending freedom of speech, are you next going to amend freedom of religion?  Where does it end?”

Grassley went on to say that the constitutional amendment proposed by Senate Democrats “would have limited the unfiltered ability of the electorate to advocate, influence, persuade, denounce, criticize and challenge those running for public office.  The amendment would abridge the fundamental right of free speech by enabling the government to limit funds contributed to candidates and restrict spending by individuals or groups to express political views to the public during an election.

“The proposed amendment would protect incumbents, and would jeopardize the ability of citizens to criticize politicians, challenge government policy and influence their neighbor’s views on politics and policy upon penalty of imprisonment.  Members of Congress could decide what citizens may or may not say leading up to an election.”

[poll random]

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Even more news:

Watercooler

Need help with your website?
Call your local professional,
Breakthrough Web Design:
515-897-1144
or go to
BreakthroughWebDesign.com

Copyright 2024 – Internet Marketing Pros. of Iowa, Inc.
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x