won't get far. (1) Many proposed amendments are
just grandstanding/feel good efforts (2) I don't think this is an issue
that will move the average voter or legislator to push hard. (3) It is obviously a partisan move and will not get bipartisan support.
(4) Fiddling First Amendment issues by restrictions will send up a red flag and set a
dangerous precedent. I doubt event the left-leaning ACLU would want to
take that step. Thanks to Dale Christopersen for the lead and link.
A few points that have been ignored by much of the media re Citizens United:
The
Citizens United decision benefited private corporations and Republicans,
but the basic principle will protect Democrats if they ever become the
targets. The basic problem with the
amendment and the criticism of Citizens
United is that it only addresses one part of the problem. If the
problem is too much money being spent, too much material for voters, etc. then across the board
contribution or spending limits are the solution. Why single out only
one segment? The ban on union activity is just a drop in the bucket compared to the impact on corporations. Hypocrisy and political advantage are the explanations. The reason for it all is
that the segment targeted is generally conservative. Perhaps there could
be some limits on TV time or something along that line. Any "solution"
will raise serious First Amendment issues, and will probably never work
as long as the courts are serious about the First Amendment. Any
"solution" that targets only certain segments will be suspect.