Today the Supreme Court struck a major blow for free speech by correctly holding that government cannot try to “level the political playing field” by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs.
As Justice Kennedy said in announcing the opinion, “if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.”
While the Court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest.
After all, to make campaign spending equal, the government would have to prevent some people or groups from spending less than they wished. That is directly contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of American conceptions about the freedom of speech.
No case demonstrates this idea better than Citizens United, where a nonprofit corporation made no donations to candidates but rather spent money to spread its ideas about Hillary Clinton independent of the campaigns of primary opponent Barack Obama, potential general election opponent John McCain, or any other candidates. Where is the “corruption” if the campaign(s) being supported have no knowledge, let alone control over what independent actors do? — be they one person, two people, or a large group?
Today’s ruling may well lead to more corporate and union election spending, but none of this money will go directly to candidates — so there is no possible corruption or even “appearance of corruption.” It will go instead to spreading information about candidates and issues. Such increases in spending should be welcome because studies have shown that more spending — more political communication — leads to better-informed voters.
In short, the Citizens United decision has strengthened both the First Amendment and American democracy.
CP: Cato's blog
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Your argument may be sound from a constitutional standpoint (leaving aside the issue of whether corporations should be treated as citizens), but in reality, it may not play out so well.
With this ruling, you could potentially see elections as merely a shouting contest with the victor being the one with the most money. Naturally, corporations and wealthy individuals have the most money. While they can't bribe individual voters or offer unlimited support directly to candidates, they can spread slander about all opposition candidates or buy out all the time slots on media channels and newspapers to effectively silence any opposition.
You may argue that individuals are still the ones voting and will use their best judgment in elections. But do individuals really have free will when they're being socialized to act a certain way? If all information channels say the same thing, will the average person not believe it?
The constitution may have certain stipulations, but a document made in the 18th century cannot plan for all contingencies and societal changes that progress brings. It's definitely not appropriate for today. Although there is the amendment process, political forces have aligned to make any changes infeasible barring a martyr event. Unfortunately, people have been socialized to believe that the constitution is sacred and perfect.
Post a Comment