Should the First Amendment be modified so that speech influencing elections can be regulated? [View all]
As an example, the following constitutional amendment would narrow the First Amendment to enable Congress to restrict independent expenditures intended to influence elections:
Insofar as it relates to freedom of speech, the First Amendment to this Constitution shall not apply to speech that refers to candidates in Federal or State elections, within the six month period prior to such elections.
In the Citizens United case the Supreme Court ruled that independent expenditures such as third parties making movies or publishing books about election candidates is protected speech under the First Amendment. Modifying the First Amendment so that this is no longer the case would enable Congress to restrict such expenditures by (for example) limiting the amount of such spending in the run-up to an election.
Such an amendment would also enable the US to institute a system such as elections being financed exclusively by public funds, or to ban all political TV advertising in the run-up to an election (as is the case in the UK, for example).
|14 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
|Yes, the First Amendment should be modified to enable speech influencing elections to be regulated.
|No, the First Amendment should not be modified to enable speech influencing elections to be regulated.
|1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll