[EL] correction re vote on constitutional amendment

Thu Jun 19 10:08:52 PDT 2014

I am completely confused by this statement:

Those interests will then need to  be balanced with the First Amendment 
which, contrary to the colorful arguments  of Senator Cruz, remains fully in 
effect.

I thought the proposed amendment supplanted the First Amendment, not  
supplemented it.  Can someone explain this?  Jim

In a message dated 6/19/2014 11:24:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
APearson at commoncause.org writes:

The  revised amendment is both narrower and more effective than the 
original  bill.  Section 1 restores and strengthens compelling governmental  
interests that the Roberts Court has read out of campaign finance  jurisprudence 
in its drive to make quid pro quo corruption the only  justification for 
regulation.  Those interests will then need to be  balanced with the First 
Amendment which, contrary to the colorful arguments of  Senator Cruz, remains 
fully in effect.  There are many areas of law where  speech rights are balanced 
against other rights and interests, from courtroom  arguments, to libel and 
slander laws, hate speech and public protest  regulations.  There is 
absolutely nothing in the revised amendment that  would allow discriminatory or 
content-based regulations. 
The  reference in Section 2 does actually have a purpose – to make it clear 
that  Congress and the states may restore prohibitions on corporate 
spending (and  contributions, the way the Court seems to be headed) that held sway 
at the  federal level and in many states for most of the last century.  It 
does  not address the “personhood” issue or otherwise eliminate 
constitutional  protections for corporations.   
I  personally believe that the “to advance” purpose language in Section 1 
is  adequate to restrain the scope of future campaign finance laws, but 
Senator  Durbin and other clearly felt that the word “reasonable” should to be 
added  in, per the testimony of J. Stevens.     
From:  law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu  
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of  Mark Schmitt
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:44  AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] correction  re vote on constitutional amendment 

Incidentally, the amendment as  passed by subcommittee is somewhat 
different from Udall's S.J. Res. 19 as  introduced.  It adds a meaningless nod to 
the "corporations aren't  people" crowd, and adds the word "reasonable" before 
the word "limits." From  what I watched of the markup, the Dems seemed to 
be arguing that this word  would be sufficient to stop the 
non-viewpoint-neutral or non-content-neutral  regulations that Cruz was warning about and that 
we discussed in an earlier  thread.
Amended version, as found at 
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/executive-business-meeting-2014-06-18 

‘‘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 press.’’.

Mark  Schmitt
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9  

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rick Hasen <_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) > wrote: 

_Senate Judiciary  Committee Subcommittee [Corrected] Votes 5-4 in Favor of 
Campaign Finance  Amendment_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507)  

Posted on _June 19, 2014 6:50  am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_So reports Peter Overby._ 
(https://twitter.com/peteroverby/status/479358474066087936)  
[This post has been corrected and bumped to the top.] 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507&title=Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Subcommittee%20[Corrected]%20Votes%2
05-4%20in%20Favor%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Amendment&description=) 

Posted in _campaign  finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)   
-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
_949.824.3072_ (tel:949.824.3072)  - office
_949.824.0495_ (tel:949.824.0495)  - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
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/20140619/407a007f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140619/407a007f/attachment.bin>