Some members of Congress want to rewrite the First Amendment. Although it is unlikely that they will succeed, it is worth looking at what they propose in order to understand the mindset of some of our elected representatives.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Tom Udall along with some other members of Congress were upset with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United decision. They therefore propose that the First Amendment be changed to give the states and federal government the power to regulate the raising and spending of money in political campaigns. The goal would be “to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all.”

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal put this attempt to rewrite the First Amendment in perspective. “A standard liberal talking point about the Tea Party is that its constitutional designs are ?extremist.’ But you will search in vain for any Tea Party proposal that is anywhere close to as radical as the current drive by mainstream Democrats to rewrite the Bill of Rights.”

The editorial also notes that the real guarantee would be to provide another political advantage for incumbents. They are the ones who will benefit from limiting contributions that could be used to educate voters about how their elected officials voted on key pieces of legislation.

It is worth noting that the proposed amendment would not have any impact on the press. The real target would be corporations. The Wall Street Journal then asks another question, “But why should Warren Buffett’s company enjoy free speech rights because he owns a handful of newspapers along with insurance companies, while Jeffrey Immelt’s is muzzled because GE makes jet turbines?”

As I said, it is unlikely that the First Amendment will be revised any time soon. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. That won’t happen. But it does illustrate the lengths some members of Congress would go to change the Constitution if they could.