[EL] Cruz op-ed on proposed constitutional amendment

[Marty Lederman]

What is the language of the hypothetical constitutional amendment that we
are supposed to be analyzing?


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Sean Parnell <
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

> I believe Rick linked to the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Senator
> Cruz
> <http://online.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-the-democratic-assault-on-the-first-amendment-1401662112>
> regarding the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress
> to regulate money spent in politics. There were a handful of examples of
> what the Senator asserted the proposed amendment would do, I thought it
> would be interesting to post them and see if anyone here, on any side of
> the issue, wanted to either support or rebut the assertions. I’d note that
> the claims made by the Senator largely mirror what I’ve said myself in the
> past, so you can probably guess my thoughts on these assertions.
>
>
>
> If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed
> constitutional:
>
> Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing
> voter guides letting citizens know politicians' records on the Second
> Amendment.
>
> Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads
> criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.
>
> Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money
> to urge their views of abortion.
>
> Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind
> expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.
>
> Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their
> parishioners to vote.
>
> Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the
> president.
>
> Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore
> <http://topics.wsj.com/person/M/Michael-Moore/5437> ) and radio
> programs—anything not deemed "the press"—that might influence upcoming
> elections.
>
> Anybody care to explain how/why Senator Cruz is wrong, or failing that I
> suppose, to argue that he’s right but that it’s a good thing these things
> could be done under the proposed amendment?
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140604/77ab34db/attachment.html>