Yesterday I talked about the desire of some members of Congress to rewrite the First Amendment. One senator who plans to vote against the amendment took on the arguments being used by proponents.

Senator Ted Cruz calls the upcoming vote a “Democratic Assault on the First Amendment.” So far 41 Democrats have signed on to the amendment proposed by Senator Tom Udall. The amendment would regulate “the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections.”

Senator Cruz says that two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. The first is that “money is not speech. He responds that: “Speech is more than just standing on a soap box yelling on a street corner.” Free speech includes writing and distributing pamphlets, putting up billboards, displaying yard signs, launching a website, and running ads on radio and television. These activities all require money. If you prohibit spending money, you can prohibit most forms of free speech.

The second argument used to justify the amendment is that “corporations have no free speech rights.” Proponents argue that the Supreme Court got it wrong in their Citizens United decision. But consider the fact that the major media outlets are also corporations. “The New York Times is a corporation. The television network NBC is a corporation. Book publisher Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Paramount Pictures is a corporation.” I doubt any of the amendment’s sponsors would argue that Congress could restrict these media outlets merely because they are corporations and not individual persons.

Senator Cruz also reminds us that the amendment is written in such a way that it could give Congress great power to stifle free speech. He provides examples from the arguments used by the administration against the Citizens United case.

The free speech provisions in the Constitution and particularly in the Bill of Rights have served us well for more than two centuries. We don’t need an amendment giving Congress power to regulate political speech.