We should Amend The Constitution to Overturn Citizens United

Fact: the BCRA is about imprisoning filmmakers, Writers, Publishers, Pamphleteers etc.. Db's lack of knowledge about this does not make it any less so... Proof - ( ) Db denies that he wants the administration to have the power to imprison journalists yet he admittedly wants to ban movies. Db makes that undeniably clear with his statement "Citizens United took the case regarding the ban of their film". When a government has power to ban a movie they also have the power to ban books, Pamphlets and much more. The force behind this power was the threat of imprisonment. As you just heard, the Obama administration assures us that they will only imprison film makers not writers. An assurance that expires in 2016. Not that a politicians promise is worth anything at all anyway. I find it troubling that Db finds the banning of movies and imprisonment of filmmakers acceptable at all. This is the United States of America. We don't ban Political speech in the form of Books, movies, pamphlets, newsletters and we never give a politician the power to do so. This debate is about reinstating the BCRA in its entirety. The law may have had some good clauses in it but the bad ones are unacceptable and unconstitutional. If you read the courts opinion they uncharacteristically beg congress to get to work to write new law reinstating the good clauses and even give a green light on the constitutionality of these measures. Congress feebly initiated this but shelved their minimal effort in favor of creating Obama care. Db is in favor of deciding who is a journalist and who is not. Db has already decided that David Bossie is not. In the USA the only person who can decide if you are a journalist is you. As long as you have never proved to be a felon even if you have your character assassinated by Db as he did to David Bossie you can still be a journalist based entirely on your own decision. Db even claims David Bossie committed the crime of "Electioneering" he seems to not have noticed that "Electioneering" is not a crime in the USA like it is totalitarian states such as Zimbabwe or North Korea. Db seems to have a poor understanding of what "Electioneering" is otherwise he would know that people like Rachael Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, Glen Beck and many more commit "electioneering". With obvious tongue in cheek I humorously attribute a made up quote to Db. Sadly it is in the realm of Db's true perception. Db is, in all practicality, saying to you "You are so terribly lacking in common sense that you need me to decide who can report on American politics and who can not" Db is saying to you "David Bossie should be banned from reporting to you and should be imprisoned for doing so" Who else does Db want to silence so that you can not hear what they have to say. Obviously with great arrogance Db wants choose for you who can report to you and who can not. What is really frightening is that we don't know who will be in the White House in 2016..2020..'24....and on Some totalitarians who argue in favor of the BCRA will say that the law is only applied for one third of the year. I don't care if it is for one minute a year. One minute is too long to give a president the power to ban books, movies etc....and to imprison authors, filmmakers etc.... Db states " Nowhere can my opponent find an example of putting 'authors, filmmakers, pamphleteers, bloggers, publishers and anyone else who reports on politics' in jail for their speech". Such laws are about fear. The threat of violence and imprisonment for reporting on politics silences journalists around the world. Our court does not take cases until there is an injured party and in this case there was an injured party. The party was not only David Bossie. The injured party was all of us. The American people. The right to free speech is also the right to hear and we the people were denied our right to hear all sides report on Hillary. That is why the court set the case back to David Bossies original "Facial" challenge. This whole case that we are discussing is about a film I never was allowed to see because it was banned by the Bush administration empowered by the BCRA. The Bush administration declared that David Bossie was not a journalist and threatened violence upon him if he were to report on Hillary Clinton. (and yes, arrest and detainment is an act of violence. Just ask the family of Eric Garner) Never give your government the power to decide what is truth or what is false. Who is a journalist or who is not. You are intelligent enough to discern these thing for yourself despite Db's lack of confidence in you. Laughingly Db speaks as if our election system was less corrupted for the several years that the BCRA was in place. It was as corrupted then as it is now. The solution is not to regress from the Bill of Rights as Db supports here with the extreme measure of Amending the constitution to allow future administrations to decide who is and who is not a journalist. Only you should decide for yourself whether or not you are a Journalist. Only you should decide who you want to listen to and who you believe. Don't let a future administration decide that for you, your children and all of our descendants. We do need to regulate campaign contributions, soft money and disclosure. These are honorable things that can be done in congress with in the framework of our good constitution. These are things that the Court begged Congress to do in the "Opinion". To deceptively foster a movement to unnecessarily amend the Constitution is suspicious. The people behind this Amendment want control. Control of what you are allowed to hear, to know and to think. Demand the right to think for yourself and vote "NO!" for an amendment that gives the power to future administrations to decide for you who is a journalist and who is not. To decide who you are allowed to hear and who is silenced. You are intelligent you know hot air when you see it. Beware of the thought police. Opinion ( http://www.law.cornell.edu... ) Dissent ( http://www.law.cornell.edu... ) Some minutes of the case ( )