As I read this short and very simple proposal from the Senators from South Carolina and Arizona with respect to political speech, it does not amend the first amendment. It repeals it. It states that the Congress of the United States has the power reasonably to limit contributions or expenditures with respect to elections for Federal and State offices. That is exactly the power the Congress of the United States would have were there no first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Our actions in that respect would have to meet some test of reasonableness under the 14th amendment in that field as they do in every other. But for all practical purposes, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified by the States 209 years ago, would be repealed with respect to political speech.
T. Gorton: “As I read this short and very simple proposal from the Senators from South Carolina and Arizona with respect to…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing a proposal that would limit political speech and amend the First Amendment.
Share
More from T. Gorton
The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House colleagues would require additional statutory…
I am here to cheer the announcement by the Ford Motor Company that it will voluntarily improve the fuel economy of its fleet of sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over a period of 5 years. At a time when gas prices are skyrocketing and…
Again, this was the program of the Senator from New Mexico. I do not think there was any item in the conference committee that was discussed at more length with the administration and in more detail. I am gratified the Senator was able to…
on a third and separate subject, during the course of this past week, four Northwest Governors, two Republicans and two Democrats--the Governors of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon--released a framework that shows great promise…





