“First, the NY Times does not have to be a corporation. It can just as easily be a partnership or some other entity.”

But it currently IS a corporation. Are you saying that established media like the NYT would have their freedom of the press abolished if this amendment passes, but could restore it for themselves if they reorganize? I don’t see why I should be OK with that. The NYT can’t easily reorganize itself. It has shareholders. Do you SERIOUSLY want to require that all media organizations instead must be owned by one or two people? Exactly what positive effect do you think that will have?

And of course, there’s nothing in the amendment that says the government can’t do the same things to a partnership or a sole proprietorship that they can do to a corporation. Quite the contrary.

“Second, the amendment would not take away anything, at least initially. It would simply give the government the chance to regulate. Consequently, the NY Times might retain the ability to do whatever it wants to do.”

That’s kind of like saying we could repeal the entire First Amendment and it would have no initial effect. Even if true, it wouldn’t be wise.

I would argue that this amendment DOES take away freedom by stating that the government CAN take away freedom. The government pressures industries into taking action under the threat of passing a law all the time. How do you think we got those “voluntary” movie ratings? Passing this amendment, even without passing anything else, sends a huge message – don’t do anything we don’t like, or else.

And the action might actually HAVE an effect – primarily, that existing laws that were found unconstitutional but were never repealed might or might not suddenly be constitutional. At the very least everything involving campaign finance would have to be re-litigated.

But are you seriously saying that they’d go so far as to pass a constitutional amendment, and then do nothing with it?

“the government could make laws trying to explain which corporations could spend money on politics.”

That’s kind of the point of the entire amendment.

But anyway, how does this – or ANY of what you just said – affect my scenario? My proposition was that you cannot get rid of money in politics without abridging freedom of the press, and gave the purchase of the NYT as an example.

Are you saying that the government could implement a blanket exemption for media? If so, how does that prevent my scenario of someone simply buying the NYT? Are you saying that the government could examine each media outlet to make sure they weren’t too political, or weren’t bought by the wrong person, or weren’t organized as a corporation? If so, isn’t that abridging the freedom of the press horribly? Are you saying that the government could pass this amendment and then not actually do anything? How does that get rid of money in politics?

The tide did turn, in 1980. The question is whether the turn has ebbed and we are on the way in the other direction or whether it has merely slowed. If you are waiting for the tide to turn us back to pre-New Deal government, I am afraid that not even Reagan’s moon-like effect on our politics was enough.

I don’t agree. For one thing, our government is utterly unsutainable financially, fueled by debt (and now money printing) that simply cannot go on indefinitely. That, combined with the fact that massive government and the welfare state have failed to deliver on any of their promises, makes me optimistic that the tide will turn. I can’t predict when, but it’s only a matter of time.

I suppose the money/politics issue is a connundrum to some extent, but your proposed solution will inevitably trample on speech rights and is therefore the worst of all solutions. Our government was instituted to secure the blessings of liberty, not to trade them off for the illusions of freedom spawned by a welfare state.

With the internet and the US first amendment, it is possible for people in other countries to read and talk about issues that are forbidden in their own countries. Even news that cannot be reported locally (this actually happens in the EU, in France and the UK), gets reported on some US-based news supplier. The combination of the internet and the 1st A serve a powerful need on this planet. It is sad that the rest of the world has been trying mightly to censure the internet, with demands for local control of content, and the EU saying that people have the right to be forgotten. Now the progressives say that we have to help them by gutting the 1st amendment.

They should be ashamed of themselves, and the rest of us need to condemn them in the harshest (but civil) possible way. When the Dems lose the senate this year, the names of the senators who voted for this abomination need to be inscribed on a stone tablet-of-shame that should be installed inside the National Archives next to the constitution.

“First, the NY Times does not have to be a corporation. It can just as easily be a partnership or some other entity.”

No it couldn’t.

1. There are only three options for a for profit business, incorporation, partnership and sole proprietorship.

2. The NYT is not a cash cow, they face numerous future financial problems due to declining readership.

3. For the NYT to unincorporate, a real person or a small group of real people would have to buy all of the outstanding shares and first take the NYT private.

4. Do you really think that there is anyone out there with enough money to buy the NYT who would be willing to do so if they knew up front that they would be losing the protection of limited liability? Billionaires don’t get that rich by being stupid.

I think we can get around your concerns.

First, the NY Times does not have to be a corporation. It can just as easily be a partnership or some other entity.

Second, the amendment would not take away anything, at least initially. It would simply give the government the chance to regulate. Consequently, the NY Times might retain the ability to do whatever it wants to do.

Third, the government could make laws trying to explain which corporations could spend money on politics.

I am not saying that the proposed amendment is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am saying that no corporation will necessarily lose its rights if the amendment passed. However, a corporation would be in greater jeopardy of losing those rights, which, perhaps, is just as bad.

The New York Times (for example) has every right to endorse a candidate, or to simply tend to publish stories favorable to that candidate and unfavorable to another candidate. If you say they can’t do that, you’re abridging freedom of the press. If you say they CAN do that, you’re essentially saying that the super-rich can get around these rules by simply using their money to buy an entire media organization instead of an ad. Why should it be legal to buy the entire New York Times but not to rent some space on page 8?

This makes me wonder if the entire proposed amendment would have no effect at all. The text of the proposed amendment states that nothing in it should be construed to limit freedom of the press. But what IS freedom of the press, if not the freedom to use your money to publish things you want to publish?

Now liberals have fundraising to match the rich guys and the balance got out of whack. And Ross Perot and others encouraged people to think that they could clean up government with their good intentions. But governments run on complicated policies. Censoring political speech is problematic. We already have that with respect to Global Warming.

And yes people still want to bar scientific evolution from schools. My understanding is that those people are finally less than a majority, but still large enough to justify a “Holy Smokes” response.

You have crossed the line. Al Franken was funny (as my 1st grader would say: “that is a fact, not an opinion.”).

In any case, it does not matter.

Fred Grandy was not funny, but he was elected to Congress (and did a decent job of representing his constituents).

Sonny Bono was funny (and did a decent job of representing his constituents).

While not a comic actor, G.W. Bush was a joke before becoming a politician (and did a mediocre job, at best, in office).

Thus, I conclude that a person’s relative humorousness prior to running for office is entirely irrelevant.