Call it the Charles Schumer Anti-First-Amendment Act of 2014. Its the bill our senior senator promises to bring to the floor by the years end. Schumer wants to put a dagger through the heart of the Bill of Rights.

He embraced this brainstorm at a Senate Rules Committee hearing last week. He said hed work to pass a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to restrict the peoples freedom to finance elections.

Whats so fascinating about this is that it puts a senator from New York in the league of the cranks. It reminds me of the billboards Impeach Earl Warren, put up by those who couldnt abide the Supreme Courts decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The high court decisions Schumer doesnt like are the recent ones known as McCutcheon and Citizens United.

In McCutcheon, the justices threw out a law that capped the total amount of money a person could donate to various campaigns. In Citizens United, the court let a not-for-profit group distribute a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton, even though she was running for president. In effect, the ruling let labor unions, not-for-profit groups and corporations participate in the public debate at election time.

The two rulings have produced among Democrats a petulance not seen in their party in years. One would have to go back to the 1960s, when another Democrat, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, vowed to stand in the schoolhouse door to block the Supreme Courts integration decisions.

The comparison is not that Schumer is a racist (hes not). Its that the resistance to the court is similar. Particularly since Citizens United, which was handed down in 2010, didnt hamper the Democrats ability to re-elect President Obama by a wide margin.

Yet Democrats still want to gut the First Amendment. Its the one that guarantees freedom of religion, speech and the press, as well as the right to petition the government and peaceably assemble. Citizens United strengthened every one of those freedoms.

The measure Schumer embraced last week was hatched by another unhappy Democrat, Sen. Thomas Udall of New Mexico. It would let Congress block people from deciding how much of their money to contribute to political advocacy during campaign season.

Its not just the federal government the Schumer amendment would unleash against people. Its also state governments, a point that was made by Udall. The amendment being planned would allow the regulation of not just partisan spending but even independent spending.

Schumer is trying to palm off the idea that his scheme wouldnt limit freedom of the press. No, it instead would unleash Congress and state governments to go directly after voters and other citizens. Its hard to recall a more cynical measure having been laid before Congress.

Continued here:

Chucking the First Amendment: Schumers cranky scheme