As it was they could take the money and avoid the heat. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his courage in this matter and the clarity with which he speaks on it. We simply cannot, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, limit political speech. We can only limit responsible political speech. We can only force money from responsible challenges into less responsible ones. We can only increase the power of the press, the very group that is most anxious to limit speech by others than its own members, and/or do what some proposed to do just a few months ago, say the first amendment doesn't work anymore and we better change it. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, that may have been, as it was, terrible policy, but it was at least intellectually honest. To present us with an unconstitutional bill is neither.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of limiting political speech and the First Amendment.
Share
More from T. Gorton
in fiscal year 1990, the Forest Service sold 11 billion board feet of timber for harvest and for productive use. For the last 2 years, we have authorized through our appropriations 3.6 billion board feet of harvest. The administration…
I was about to say, for the benefit of my friend from Nevada, isn't it fortunate that the Congress of the United States, in the first decade of the 19th century, didn't prohibit the development of a steam engine because it might explode…
The Senator from Nevada is entirely correct. If we can only take a quick vote on it with the Senators on the floor now, we would probably succeed. Unfortunately, we have yet to persuade all of our colleagues of this matter. The question…
The Senator from Nevada is as learned as he is wise, and his reference to Luddites in the late 18th and early 19th century England is entirely correct. The word has come down to us today, referring to those who are so fearful of changes in…





