Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is making a major speech tomorrow about free speech and campaign finance.
And is here to night to give us a preview welcome senator going to be your Chris I'm about to say welcome to FOX News Sunday but -- Good good good day here you're not on Fox News on it -- -- and I it is in this is the point of your speech tomorrow the Obama administration.
Is working to silence.
Critics and to limit free speech protections under the First Amendment explain -- what -- try.
On to do is intimidate donors outside groups that are critical of the administration.
But the campaign is rifled through one donors.
They've got the RS the SEC and other agencies.
Trying to frighten people and tell them intimidate them out of exercising their rights to participate.
In the American political discourse.
Which is being -- these as -- lot of different groups and no longer are they all the political well now -- there's more -- stood and of course the temptation of anybody in power should try to silence your -- One final point -- -- the president -- -- political advisor David Axelrod said yesterday the president and he wanted to amend the First Amendment.
For the first time in history to make it possible for the government.
To determine who gets to speak and who doesn't.
Ruined when you say it.
And then the First Amendment -- I think he was talking about trying to find some response to the Citizens United -- and concisely and and they understand and they wouldn't actually literally -- -- -- -- -- so -- you know what it would it would -- -- -- has got -- -- First Amendment -- it is possible now for the government to control political speech citizens' united another campaign -- Decisions -- made it clear that the government doesn't have the power under the First Amendment to determine not only what we say about how much we say it until they can't control.
The spending that promotes -- Do you think this.
And I have to call it alleged intimidation.
Goes beyond other president's other administrations.
Yeah actually quite nixonian and I'm not to get to go back to Richard -- -- the last time you.
A group of people both through the campaign and through the power of the federal government.
Really try to harassed and silenced critics.
And I think it'd be called on and and that's what I'm going to be talking about tomorrow on apparel maker -- okay.
Let me take the other side of the argument.
Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson is on the front page of the papers today.
Is going to.
Two way pro Romney super pac.
Does that worry you put all that that individual up on the screen there are others like -- you know very very rich individuals can have.
And a fact on the political debate in our country well first of all I don't remember people -- -- -- outrage when George Soros on the political left who's doing the same thing to promote.
The other side of the argument but the Supreme Court is basically said an impermissible for the government to determine who gets to speak.
That we all get and obviously some people you know have more money than others but most people.
Want to belong to organizations that don't want the government telling them what they can say or how much they can say -- and so it's just not possible for the federal government.
To regulate all of this speech natives keep their hands off of it there are plenty of wealthy people.
On the other side of the equation doing the same thing to promote.
The president and his -- -- -- Democrats have come up with one short of a constitutional amendment.
One possible count -- to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
What they called the disclose act and the idea is which would seem pretty Vanilla disclosure.
Require groups to name all the donors.
Who give contributed just disclose it.
More than 101000 dollars what's wrong with well of course if you contribute to what Canada.
Or to a party it's already disclosed but the purpose -- trying to get disclosure to outside groups is to bring the power the government down on the meant to intimidate them out of process.
And interestingly enough -- this particular bill.
Has allies carve out.
-- eliminates the provisions so they don't -- -- labor unions.
But if if it did apply to everybody what would be wrong way that disclosure.
You know provided the government wasn't gonna -- should be okay but -- just -- as I had mentioned to you earlier in this interview we now have an administration that if they can get their hands on the names.
We'll go after the donors and try to frighten them and an opportunist and -- united -- carries -- got kind of mention -- and avoid people vs Alabama but not back in 1958.
Where the state of Alabama trying to get the donor list and NAACP.
And the -- -- they couldn't -- that donors hadn't -- -- they have the right to participate that causes of their preference.
Without having people harass them and that's the danger of disclosure outside groups people who give us to candidates and parties are already Fuller disclosure everybody can make whatever they want to -- We're going to be watching his speech tomorrow thank you for giving us a preview -- and I do.
Filter by section