Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is reportedly angry with Republicans who wisely allowed him to advance his assault on free speech in the Senate. It has no chance of passing, but Reid and his party need to be exposed for who they are, which puts Reid in a bit of a bind.

After all his complaints about Republican obstruction this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed frustration last night after Republicans helped guarantee a floor vote on a measure he supports.

The Nevada Democrat has accused Senate Republicans of chicanery for voting to advance to the Senate floor a Democratic constitutional amendment allowing Congress to regulate all campaign speech and spending.

After Monday’s bipartisan 79-18 vote, Reid vented to reporters that Republicans were trying to “stall” the Senate, indicating that he never intended for the campaign finance amendment by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to go to a real floor debate. (Read More)

If that’s the case, he never should have introduced it in the first place.

Oh, and while the media is covering this story, they might want to think about what it would mean for them if the Democrats get their way.

The Democrats insist that this is all about keeping corporations from having too much influence on political discourse — a problematic enough assertion in and of itself; who are they to decide when somebody has too much free speech? — but they fail to deal with the fact that, under the law, there is no constitutional difference between Chevron and the New York Times Company — a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. Nonprofit corporations will fall under the same shadow. The proposed amendment would allow Congress to forbid not only financial contributions to political causes but also “in kind” contributions, which could mean anything from volunteer door-knocking to sympathetic television coverage to the endorsement of the Washington Post.

… As noted, current law makes no distinction between media corporations and other kinds of corporations; creating that distinction, which Congress would of course have to do if it wants to apply one set of rules to General Electric and another to Disney, would be indistinguishable from federal licensing of news outlets, i.e. the repeal of fundamental, centuries-long First Amendment protections. If you have to have government permission to engage in free speech, you don’t have free speech. (Read More)

This is definitely a debate we want to have. Let them explain how only certain people will have the right to free speech in the United States.

Read more:http://lonelyconservative.com/2014/09/ha...Conservative%29