Limiting expenditures or donations, or opening the disclosure process, in no way violates the first amendment or implies government censorship.

FORBES: Campaign Finance Reform Does Not Equal Censorship

His current manoeuvrings could enlarge his coalition to the point where the opposition no longer has enough votes to launch a no-confidence debate or block a constitutional amendment.

ECONOMIST: Pleasing the voters

Simply, there is no consumer benefit, competitive justification, or First Amendment free speech right to engage in deceptive practices for financial gain.

FORBES: Do No Evil? Google's Deceptive Practices Harm Consumers

The two senators want to see the establishment of a bipartisan commission that would draw up a programme of budget reform to be submitted to Congress for a straight up or down vote, with no possibility of amendment, since amendments would surely cause the whole thing to unravel.

ECONOMIST: America's stimulus plan

Like it or not, the Stupak-Pitts amendment makes no effort to upset the status quo under Harris.

FORBES: Should The Government Fund Abortions?

Not incidentally, that's also the reason "No Budget, No Pay" does not violate the 27th Amendment, which forbids salary increases or reductions during a current Congress: Their salary is not being reduced, it is being withheld until they actually do their job.

CNN: 'No Budget, No Pay' is no-brainer