The Supreme Court this week handed down a major ruling in defense of free speech.
In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in elections.
President Obama was quick to condemn the ruling. He claims that corporations will be able to manipulate American opinion by supporting political candidates.
This demonstrates the left’s belief that American voters are unable to evaluate political statements and need to be “protected” from political statements made by private corporations. Of course it is ok for the left that labor unions, organizations like ACORN and left-wing media companies have the right to support candidates and make political statements. In the left’s view, Americans need to be “protected” only from political speech by organizations that are more likely to oppose the left’s agenda.
Ultimately, the constitutional right to free speech should mean that there are no restrictions on individuals or organizations to fund or engage in free speech. The only requirement should be full disclosure of who is paying for political advocacy.
The Supreme Court ruling does not go this far and many restrictions remain in place. However, the Court made statements that are very encouraging given the Obama administration’s desire to impose new regulations on political speech on the internet and talk radio.
Here are some excerpts from the Court’s opinion (via Hugh Hewitt):
Two key excerpts from Justice Kennedy’s opinion.
From p. 9:
Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker.
From pp. 48-49:
Political speech is so ingrained in our culture that speakers find ways to circumvent campaign finance laws…Our Nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise First Amendment rights. Speakers have become adept at presenting citizens with sound bites, talking points, and scripted messages that dominate the 24-hour news cycle. Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views. On certain topics corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them best equipped to point out errors or fallacies in speech of all sorts, including the speech of candidates and elected officials.
Rapid changes in technology –and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression– counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sites, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide candidates with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet [the challenged law] would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.
Two other key excerpts, these from the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion:
From p. 1
The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations–as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of democracy.
The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opinion in full. The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer….
From p. 11
The fact that the law currently grants a favored position to media corporations is no reason to overlook the danger inherent in accepting a theory that would allow government restrictions on their political speech.
{ 3 trackbacks }