Comment: Yes it would take another

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You are incorrect (see in situ)

Yes it would take another

Yes it would take another amendment to toss out the first amendment. That is still his plan. It's still a bad plan to toss out the first amendment.

The 17th tosses out state sovereignty, which put us on the road to tossing out the Constitution, since the States were part of the baffle against statism. 22A was a good though temporary patch to a Constitution well on the way to being vitiated.

You confuse speech with power.

Then you want to ban speech.. because of abuse of power. How about ban power?

You want to ban corporate speech, corporations being a group of people, because government has too much power and sells some to corporations. Your solution is give government more power.

Essentially you want the government to be the only one free to talk about the government and to have censorship over such speech. That's a really really bad idea.

If corporations having free speech is a conflict of interest how is the government being the only organization that has free speech less of one??