Feingold opposes amending Constitution to revive McCain-Feingold
posted at 2:34 pm on February 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
After the Supreme Court struck down major portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign-reform law (aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform ACT), Democrats in Congress began demanding a Constitutional amendment to limit political speech in order to counter the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Don’t count Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) among them, though. The bill’s namesake says he opposes any attempt to change the First Amendment:
Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold (D) on Thursday said he opposes a constitutional amendment to overturn a controversial Supreme Court decision last week that allowed an influx of corporate spending in political campaigns….
“I think it’s very unwise to change the Bill of Rights for any purpose,” Feingold told The Hill. “I have taken that position against a number of very unwise ideas from the Contract With America crowd who helped make sure those amendments didn’t get passed… The Constitution is the most important thing to me. I do acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s lawless decision, which may have been one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, does at least make people want to talk about that. And it concerns me, because the court is being reckless. But I am loath to do it.”
That hyperbole is just absurd. Even if one is inclined to view Citizens United as a bad decision, does Feingold really intend to argue that it was even arguably worse than Dred Scott, widely acknowledged as the most craven and unjust SCOTUS decision in history? Worse than Plessy v Ferguson, which kept public schools segregated for decades? Citizens United takes us back to the 2002 status quo, reversing the very obvious encroachment on free speech that the BCRA created, and strips incumbents of a particularly nasty protection racket.
Since Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress (as well as the ratification by three-quarters of the states), Feingold’s demurral effectively puts an end to the effort by John Kerry and others to attempt to make government the arbiter of which political speech can be published by whom and at what time. McCain has yet to weigh in on this issue, but without Feingold, Kerry won’t even get a majority to ride along on an effort that will only inflame public opinion even further against incumbent Democrats.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Beat you all!
UltimateBob on February 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM
if you’ve lost feingold…
cmsinaz on February 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Man they think they have big huge brass one’s if there was even whispers of amending the Bill of Rights. The storm of backlash that attempt would have unleased would have made Kartina look like a spring shower.
Johnnyreb on February 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM
He’s not a student of history, I see.
Vashta.Nerada on February 4, 2010 at 2:38 PM
If the Constitution is oh so important to him, why did he introduce that bill with McCain in the first place? And why is he supportive of ObamaCare and a constitutionally-questionable individual mandate?
changer1701 on February 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM
give me a break, Russ. This is simply irresponsible and sour grapes talk. You get 1 a point for avoiding amending the constitution for this. You get docked a 1/2 for this petty whining.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Feingold: Dialing down the crazy just in time for the November elections — or so he hopes.
But even in dial-down mode, he can’t help letting the loony leak out: “the Supreme Court’s lawless decision, which may have been one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.”
Please, Tommy Thompson, run.
notropis on February 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Yeahhhh a constitutional amendment is a dumb idea. Wait a few years, until the make-up of the court changes, then write up a McCain-Feingold clone and pass it. Some cons will challenge it and the court will overturn Citizens United.
Sure that’ll take awhile, but it’s easier (and better) than amending the Constitution.
He said it was “one of the worst” decisions, not “the worst”.
crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 2:40 PM
One of the worst decisions?
Amazing.
Let’s see – the Court ruling that an entire race of people had no rights. That mentally deficient people could be sterilized against their will. That Americans of Japanese descent could be herded into camps.
And a ruling that Americans have free speech rights when they’re exercising them through a corporate entity.
One of these items doesn’t fit.
Absurd hysteria.
SteveMG on February 4, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Feingolds up for re election this year, eh?
OmahaConservative on February 4, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Feingold has been a thorn in Obama’s rear lately. It makes me wonder.
Enoxo on February 4, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Korematsu, Dred Scott, Plessy, Beck v. Bell.
And Feingold adds Citizens United to that group?
All among the worst?
Indefensibly stupid.
SteveMG on February 4, 2010 at 2:43 PM
This is one of the most straight forward decisions the SCOTUS has made, that I can remember, making it simple for this administration to understand, and adhering to the Constitution’s basic intent.
But it does not surprise me that many do not understand and condemn this decision, since they are a product of a Democrat influenced, Left Wing, Conservative allergic, educational system.
And their reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking, from this so called education, also.
Could this be “retarded”?
Cybergeezer on February 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM
You paint such a broad bus that condems us all. I would enver in a million years support anything that modifies the Bill of Rights…period! The fFounders of our nation are a whole heckuva lot smarter than any politician alive today (left or right). Letting the politicians of today tinker with anything is akin to letting a child who eats paint chips rewrite the Theory of Relativity.
txaggie on February 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Worse than Roe v. Wade?
No way, Russ.
molonlabe28 on February 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM
mccain won’t touch this with a 10 ft pole…election year
cmsinaz on February 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Feingold said “lawless”; shouldn’t he be working on some way to strip the court of either power or members? Lawless is lawless.
Bishop on February 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM
… and the Democrats are squealing like stuck pigs.
Seems like the Supreme Court hit a bulls eye with this one.
Seven Percent Solution on February 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM
The original proposal, as I read yesterday, would have left the press untouched. Which had me wondering of media outlets could donate much as they wanted, or control what they aired or published. It would have been pick-and-choose what the Dems wanted in an amendment, and a possible slippery slope for any future majority to limit the People.
SCOTUS didn’t remove the prohibition (Sec. 441e) against foreign contributions to our elections, so Obowmao lied when he berated the Court. See anncoulter.com for her Feb. 3 essay on this.
The libs will try anything, won’t they? Good thing our Founders made people like in the Democrat Party have to go through hell to steal our liberty.
Liam on February 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM
AND, FOR GODS SAKE; WE THE PEOPLE NEED SOMETHING TO COUNTER THE SYCOPHANTIC MEDIA.
Cybergeezer on February 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Yeah he won’t amend the First Amendment, he’ll just violate it.
The only “lawless” person here is Feingold, who was stripped of his law, by the sentence “Congress shall make no law…”
BTW Dred Scott was perfectly sound and a rational approach to 60 years of Congressional punting. Either a slave is property, or he ain’t. If he is property then the Constitution protects his master’s interest in every state. We have not destroyed the logic of Dred Scott; we have stepped up to our moral duty, as a nation, and corrected our law to reflect the fact that blacks are human beings not property.
Chris_Balsz on February 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Was not the SCOTU decision weighed on adhering to elements of the First Amendment? They struck it down in part because of the unconstitutionality of McCain-Feingold. I just don’t see his logic here, but I’m glad he’s keeping his grubby fingers off the Constitution.
Anyone who has the gall to want to amend the constitution should be administered a test to see if they actually know what the hell is written in it.
RepubChica on February 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM
OT: The debt ceiling just passed, and my kids came out to me crying but they didn’t know why.
Bishop on February 4, 2010 at 2:51 PM
When I first heard dems wanted to go that route all I could do was laugh. I knew that would go about as far as Bush’s defense of marriage amendment. The hurdles are WAY too high to attempt anything that could be considered partisan.
I kind of welcomed their attempt too. If they thought we ripped them a new one on health care, trying to shut down the first amendment would be a cake walk to make them look stupid. A move like that would put the potential of winning every single election for the republicans as a real possibility.
clement on February 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM
He evidently thinks the Supreme Court acted stupidly.
I guess he figures that a change in the Bill of Rights can’t fix stupid.
Lily on February 4, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Feingold has been a thorn in Obama’s rear lately. It makes me wonder.
Enoxo on February 4, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Feingold will vote with the Republicans as long as it doesn’t effect the outcome. He will sit on the fence from now until November.
scorpio9 on February 4, 2010 at 2:53 PM
I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.
Lily on February 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM
+7%!
Seven Percent Solution on February 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM
I agree. I literally gasped at reading that comment from Feingold. I see arrogance doesn’t stop at the Oval Office door.
capejasmine on February 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Worse than the Kelo case where our private property were dismantled?
ouldbollix on February 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Couple that with….at the end of Rush’s show, he said he contacted a bunch of insiders, asking why the market was so shaky. They responded. The EU is falling apart, and in his words, it’s going to get ugly soon.
capejasmine on February 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Jvette on February 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM
You forgot Buck v. Bell
mizflame98 on February 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Question about the ruling. Did it apply only to McCain-Feingold, or did it apply to some other laws as well?
The reason I ask, is that I have seen news articles refer to the “century long prohibition on corporate spending”.
KeepOhioRed on February 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM
No Russ, Roe v Wade, McCain-Feingold (the original) and Kelo were the worse decisions by the Supreme Court. You don’t want to amend the Constitution for the same reason liberals never want to amend the Constitution…you’d rather have SCOTUS do it for you. Damn the people!
orlandocajun on February 4, 2010 at 3:06 PM
capejasmine on February 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Several European countries have their hands full just trying not to be overrun by Sharia Law, much less accomplish anything in the business world.
Quit whining Feingold. The playing field is now level again.
kingsjester on February 4, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Thats an interesting twist.
My bill is un-Constitutional. But, it’s not worth amending the Constitution to make it legal.
Analysis: I pandered to a certain constituency, and I don’t have an argument to justify an amendment.
My name is Feingold-McCain.
BobMbx on February 4, 2010 at 3:07 PM
So the Democrat party is the party that has a PROBLEM with the first amendment?
When can we force a change to the name of that political party? No way can “Democracy” be the root word for their name.
kurtzz3 on February 4, 2010 at 3:08 PM
In a practical manner, the only thing that changed is the prohibition against corporate advertising within a certain number of days (30/60) prior to an election.
The ruling has no effect on the amount of money that one can spend, who can spend it, or what they say.
Nothing else has changed. The “century long prohibition” is a non-sequitor.
BobMbx on February 4, 2010 at 3:11 PM
It’s already done: Refer to them as “DemCong”.
(h/t to unremembered HA commenter)
BobMbx on February 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM
My understanding is that something like 30 or 35 states forbid corporate funded campaign/political ads in state elections.
Those laws, apparently, are still in effect.
SteveMG on February 4, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Marxist rule # 22: When threatened with a loss of position or power, act begrudingly sane.
darwin on February 4, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Wow, just wow. I was seriously looking for the sarc tag until I saw your name and realized that you aren’t kidding, this is actually how liberals like to get things done.
Jvette on February 4, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Well, there is precedent for their current name, if you look at all of the “Peoples’ Democratic Republics” that have existed.
Vashta.Nerada on February 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM
I used to think the whining about McCain Feingold was kind of overwrought, then I started thinking about it and it really is amazing how presumptuous the whole idea is – safely incumbent politicians decreeing that bad things can’t be said about them in the weeks leading up to an election. Talk about Hubris.
I held my nose and voted for McCain last year because I knew the immediate harm that BHO was going to bring us both economically and to our national security, but really, McCain was a horrible candidate and is a horribly flawed politician.
johnmackeygreene on February 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Most US citizens don’t understand the CFR issue, nor do they care at this point — the polls showed at the time it was passed that it wasn’t even in the top ten among issues of concern to voters. It was a wholly manufactured crisis engineered by the left with McCain as its useful idiot.
McCain (who probably doesn’t understand it himself) won’t touch it again in an election year, but if the Dems are delusional enough to think that there is any public support for a Constitutional amendment impinging on free speech, proposed by this Congress under this President, I say, please, go for it.
Nichevo on February 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Yes, freedom and liberty mean nothing to little commies like crr6
darwin on February 4, 2010 at 3:26 PM
No, that’s just amending the constitution another way — via Supreme Court fiat. But thanks for the glimpse into Leftist thinking and its reverance for free speech.
And while Obama may be able to stick another sub-standard leftist on the court in the next three years, the prospects for a “McCain-Feingold clone” are far less rosy.
rrpjr on February 4, 2010 at 3:34 PM
These politicians may as well just eat a bunch of beans and walk around passing gas all day, because what they say amounts to just that. Talking out of their behinds.
I’m so sick of it.
bridgetown on February 4, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Until we see how this ruling plays out in reality, ammending the constitution is obviously over-reacting.
Wait and see seems very sensible.
AnninCA on February 4, 2010 at 3:34 PM
FIFY. Jackass.
Physics Geek on February 4, 2010 at 3:35 PM
McCain-Feingold illegitimately quasi-amended tha First Amendment by a bogus end run.
Now that their fraud has been caught and scrapped, Russy admits he doesn’t want to try to do it the legal way.
Epic idiot.
profitsbeard on February 4, 2010 at 3:37 PM
My Democrat friends act stupidly. The dem friends are watching their racism flare up
Justice clarence Thomas
seven on February 4, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Liberal Lexicon:
Settled Law = Laws that they like.
BobMbx on February 4, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Liberal view: The Constitution is a blank page that we get to write our policy views on.
SteveMG on February 4, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Worse than Wickard? The decision that allows Congress to duck around all the other restrictions and limitations in the Constitution? I don’t think so….
cthulhu on February 4, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Justice Thomas notes that the 1907 Sen Tillman law was part of the historical Black Codes. And Obama quoted that …
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html
I would say if a Constitutional lecture wants to take on an issue, confronting the Supreme Court may not be what you want to do.
tarpon on February 4, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Amending the Constitution is bad news, almost as bad as activist judges. I oppose gay marriage, but I also oppose a constitutional amendment banning it. Get it done through the legislature, not through the courts or by messing with our Constitution.
Daemonocracy on February 4, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Feingold’s prefered stragedy (and yes, I mean stragedy) is to pack SCOTUS with his fellow travellers.
steveegg on February 4, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Yes, and because of the focus of the Republican Party of Wisconsin on fixing Wisconsin’s problems (which, per-capita, are worse than California’s), and the unwillingness of the NRSC to actually work for a majority, there are no serious candidates. Instead, we have a guy who has donated to just about every ‘Rat except his tenant/opponent, and a guy who decided that $25,000 in the bank plus whatever he gets from blaze orange T-shirts is enough against somebody who has $3,700,000 in the bank.
steveegg on February 4, 2010 at 7:13 PM
I am a foreigner here. I have taken the time to read the Citizens United judgement but so far not the dissenting view.I believe that the majority is correct in its reasoning and that s144(b) was rightly struck down.It boiled down to the criminal sanctions
maggieo on February 6, 2010 at 3:22 PM