Posted in: News

Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson Wants to Restrict Freedom Of Speech With Constitutional Amendment

291112hank

Many Americans were highly amused when Democratic member of Congress, Hank Johnson, suggested that Guam might tip over and capsize from over population by US sailors, but his latest idea is simply no laughing matter. Rep. Johnson is demanding a Constitutional Amendment to limit Freedom Of Speech. Johnson wants the government to decide what you can say or what others can say to you.

Johnson is directing his attack on the First Amendment by cloaking it under the guise of the controversial Citizen’s United case in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights to political free speech as individuals. Obama was opposed to the ruling and prominent Republicans claimed the President objected because several large corporations were strong financial backers of conservative political candidates.

Obama responded with an unsuccessful attempt to push the so-called DISCLOSE Act through the Congress. The bill would “amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.”

In common English, under the DISCLOSE Act, any business bidding on a government contract would be required to reveal all the political contributions made by the company and directors or officers would be forced to reveal their personal political donations. The proposed law gave an exemption to unions, a major source of support for Obama and the Democratic Party.

Since the failure of the bill, the Obama Administration pursued the idea of restrictions on the First Amendment. They have misstated the Citizens United ruling to claim the Supreme Court opened a legal floodgate of foreign donations and influence on American elections, while removing the limits on campaign contributions. Not only is this absolutely untrue, but the court ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act’s ban on corporate campaign donations. The decision did not remove the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American political campaigns and it had no effect on campaign contribution limits.

Now the Democratic Party’s resident expert on Geology, Representative Johnson, has gotten into the act with his demands for a new amendment to limit Freedom of Speech and allow the Federal government to be the arbiter of First Amendment rights for, in Mr. Johnson’s own words, “all confused people.” Rather than pass any judgement on his ideas, we shall simply let Mr. Johnson speak for himself and allow you, as a freedom loving American, to make your own decision about his intentions.

“Corporations control the patterns of thinking in the United States and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.”

“We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”

“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government. They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case.”

“They control the patterns of thinking. They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government–don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.

“And these folks, are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

10 Responses to “Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson Wants to Restrict Freedom Of Speech With Constitutional Amendment”

  1. Kim LaCapria

    There is a large difference between reporting news to the public at large and using super PACs to launder money and influence legislation, which is the gripe with Citizens United.

    And people object to it for this reason, not because of partisanship.

    This ruling is political corruption, pure and simple, no matter who is buying off politicians. It's a joke to frame it as "free speech." Everyone is entitled to free speech, but not to buy favor.

  2. Wolff Bachner

    i agree with kim about super pacs. there are some disturbing facts emerging about the incestuous co-operation between the super pacs and the republican party, down to share offices in the rnc headquarters
    as a person and not a legal scholars, i tend to think of speech as coming out of the mouths of
    individuals expressing their personal opinions and ideas. i dont like the idea of companies, be they owned by dems or repubs, being able to throw money at elections and influence the decisions of individual voters.

    while Hank Johnson is a moron and I do believe his issue is free speech in general and not the citizen's united ruling, i too find the decision disturbing. but at the same time, im not a lawyer and for that i thank my lucky stars.

    both parties are equally guilty when it comes to super pacs. i support limits on campaign spending and funding by a voluntary tax deduction, as well as term limits. its time to end the political class and limit supreme court appointments to 10 year terms as well. lifetime appointments of Judges is contrary to our republic and most members of Congress are there for life. that is hardly an example of representational government that expresses the will of the voters. it is power, influence and corruption pure and simple.

  3. Wolff Bachner

    Kim LaCapria i agree with kim about super pacs. there are some disturbing facts emerging about the incestuous co-operation between the super pacs and the republican party, down to shared offices in the rnc headquarters.

    as a person and not a legal scholar, i tend to think of speech as coming out of the mouths of individuals expressing their personal opinions and ideas. i don't like the idea of companies, be they owned by Democrats or Republicans, being able to throw money at elections and influence the decisions of individual voters.

    while Hank Johnson is a moron and I do believe his issue is free speech in general and not the citizen's united ruling, i too find the decision disturbing. but at the same time, im not a lawyer and for that i thank my lucky stars.

    both parties are equally guilty when it comes to super pacs. i support limits on campaign spending and funding by a voluntary tax deduction, as well as term limits. its time to end the political class and also limit supreme court appointments to 10 year terms as well. lifetime appointments of Judges is contrary to our republic and most members of Congress are there for life. that is hardly an example of representational government that expresses the will of the voters. it is power, influence and corruption pure and simple.
    Reply · Like · 2 seconds ago

  4. Emily Lawson Hill

    While I don't support an amendment to limit free speech, I would support an amendment that requires folks running for public office to pass an IQ test, and in the case of Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson, the voters in his district too.

  5. Nathan Cary

    And I hate amendments because they're messing with the Constitution of the United States of America, but in this case, ….. , I'm with you.