quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

This amendment will not and should not pass. It would make it very difficult, if not impossible to get an incumbent voted out of office. The democrats must be very worried to even bring something like this up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The idea behind the amendment is noble but the amendment itself is scary in its implications.

If I am reading the proposed amendment correctly, there is nothing in it to prevent the incumbents from allowing themselves large amounts while restricting the opposition to a piddling amount - thus inviting either party to lock itself in as a permanent majority. In order to work the amendment MUST have a provision mandating that the amounts allowed be equal for incumbent and challengers.

While the amendment specifically protects freedom of the press I think it should also do the same for freedom of speech.

quote:

Do you really think such a provision would survive court challenges much less the court of public approval? Do try and stay in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Do you really think such a provision would survive court challenges much less the court of public approval? Do try and stay in reality.

What makes you think it would survive without it? While I don't doubt that each party would salivate at the thought of permanently locking the other party out of power, will they really want to take a chance that they may be the ones to lose out? And what is unrealistic about expecting such fairness? Does not the proposed amendment say - TWICE - that it's purpose is to "To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes . . . " How can that possibly be accomplished if one party is allowed to allocated one hundred million to the incumbent and only ten thousand (if they are feeling generous) to the challenger? Can you imagine the propaganda power of only one party airing political advertising?

I don't really see what is unrealistic about expecting such protection from one party rule. With such a provision I would be inclined to support such an amendment. Without it I will be opposed.

quote:

You just wrote it. The amendment says it already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, now we know what the November talking points will be about.

quote:



Sen. Cruz Questions IRS About Decision To Audit Breitbart News

September 9, 2014

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today sent the following letter to the Internal Revenue Service regarding its decision to audit Breitbart News Network, LLC.

The full text of the letter is available here.

Dear Commissioner Koskinen:

I write to express deep concern over the recent announcement by Breitbart News that the Internal Revenue Service recently notified the Breitbart News Network, LLC that it would be subject to a far-reaching, burdensome, and open-ended audit.

As you know, the Breitbart News Network LLC is a conservative-leaning press outlet. It has editors and reporters who cover daily political news and regularly breaks stories that are critical of the Obama Administration's policies. To conduct this audit, Breitbart News Network, LLC was asked to provide the IRS with all of its organizational documents, financial records, W-2s, W-4s, 1099s, and K-1s filed, personal income tax returns for each member of the company, payroll tax forms, information regarding properties and assets acquired by the company, bank statements, and array of other records documenting revenues, expenses, and depreciation costs.

This media audit, coupled with the recent proposal of 49 Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech, paints a disturbing picture of a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

In another time, under another Administration, the decision to audit a conservative news organization might not have risen to a worrisome level of concern. However, given the IRS's disturbing track record of illegally targeting conservative organizations-including the IRS recently paying a $50,000 settlement for having wrongfully leaked a conservative group's confidential tax information-and the persistent refusal by the current Department of Justice to meaningfully investigate or prosecute those crimes, the decision to audit Breitbart News Network, LLC appears highly questionable.

For the IRS to behave like a partisan political organization, targeting media organizations whose views differ from the President's, would represent a gross abuse of power. It would undermine the statutory mission and integrity of the IRS. And it would likely subject IRS employees to criminal prosecution.

I very much hope that is not the case.

I would therefore like to ask you the following questions:

How many other news organizations have been audited since President Obama has been in office?
How many of them could be identified as conservative- or liberal-leaning?
Have any other news organization been subjected to this sort of far-reaching and oppressive inquiry, including requesting the personal tax records of editors and reporters?
At what point does the IRS decide to take action to audit a news outlet?
Does the IRS worry that its extremely burdensome auditing process could effectively silence the press?
Previously, Senator Durbin wrote the IRS asking that it examine the tax-exempt status of Crossroads GPS, a Republican organization that spends money electing Republicans. Did the IRS ever receive any communications from any elected official asking it to examine Breitbart News Network, LLC?
Who, precisely, is responsible for making the decision to audit Breitbart News Network, LLC?

I appreciate your timely response.

Sincerely,
Ted Cruz
United States Senator

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

This media audit, coupled with the recent proposal of 49 Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech, paints a disturbing picture of a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

This media audit, coupled with the recent proposal of 49 Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech, paints a disturbing picture of a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

And the talking points language is crafted.

quote:

This is the path to tyranny. ANY American of ANY stripe who would be suckered into supporting this assault on freedom should have their right to vote stripped at best, and the ones who love the idea should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot as a better option. I'll volunteer for duty on the latter, if needed.

Clear enough?