Democrats trying to circumvent the First Amendment

The Democrats just can't accept defeat. Their hatred of wealth, success and business in general knows no bounds, no restraint, no rationale.

In angry reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Md., working with the White House, have drafted legislation that would throw up all sorts of obstacles to corporations who would dare to exercise their newly restored rights to political speech.

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, their proposal would ban expenditues on election campaigns by foreign countries and by companies that have taken bailout funds or have federal contracts. It would also require extensive spending reports, demand that the top five contributors to an organization placing a political ad  be listed in the ad, and even require CEOs to appear in commercials and say they approve of the message, just as candidates themselves are now required to do.

They make no secret of their motive.

Schumer said Thursday new rules "will make them think twice," before advertising. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated."

He also bemoaned the influence of special interests, whatever those are — the Democratic Party leaderships, unions, liberals, environmentalists? Nay, nay. Special interests means interests with whom you disagree.

He said a poll shows American oppose the ruling by a 64-27 margin.

The Constitution is not a popularity contest.

Schumer-Van Hollen tries to skirt the ruling by creating a labyrinth of criminal penalties and inconveniences. If they can't gag the business community outright, they plan to make it prohibitively complicated and dangerous to misstep. The definition of abridgement? Might it be "deterrent effect"?

Democratic leadership finds free speech abhorrent, because they don't believe they can win in a toe-to-toe battle. So they must shred the First Amendment and seek block to anyone who might challenge their dogma.