The other day I blogged (https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2014/09/08/help-help-im-being-repressed.html) about a silly NRA press release nattering on about the current quixotic effort by Senatorial Dems to pass a constitutional amendment allowing for campaign finance limits, rolling back the clock to before the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling decreed that corporations are people, friend, when it comes to free speech, which of course means money, or the subsequent SCOTUS McConnell v. FEC ruling that said aggregate spending limits on individuals in campaigns were also a violation of free speech.
Well, the editors of the National Review want you to know that the NRA is not just the lobbying arm of the American gun industry, but hold a position that is just like theirs. To wit, that what the Democrats are trying to do is "voting to repeal the First Amendment," in an attempt to "to suppress criticism of themselves and the government, and to suffocate any political discourse that they cannot control."
Yeah, just like John McCain did back when he passed a campaign finance reform law. Back when the idea that corporations couldn't be limited from contributing money to campaigns, or that individuals couldn't be capped in their ability speak spend, was considered a Bizarro World opinion.
The text of the proposed amendment is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/148408191/Udall-Constitutional-Amendment-on-Campaign-Finance
The National Review editors go on, gravely, that the amendment "would invest Congress with blanket authority to censor newspapers and television reports, ban books and films, and imprison people for expressing their opinions. So long as two criteria are met — the spending of money and intending to influence an election — the First Amendment would no longer apply."
The National Review editors are laboring under two misapprehensions (to say the least).
First, they consider the only form of effective advocacy to be the spending of money. They buy into (so to speak (so to speak)) the idea that if you aren't throwing money at it, you aren't really speaking.
This says volumes about what they consider "free speech" to be, and why the idea that a rich person, or a rich corporation, is therefore entitled by their wealth to de facto more speech than you or me is so pernicious.
I have a lot of ways that I can express my opinion, including about elections, without spending money. They work a lot better when not drowned out by multi-million-dollar ad campaigns.
Second, they've missed Section 3 of the amendment: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press."
So all that stuff about censoring newspapers and television reports. Um … not so much.
"It is worth reiterating that for all of the apocalyptic talk about all-powerful corporations, the Citizens United decision was at its heart about the fact that the government sought to make it a crime to show a film critical of Hillary Clinton at a time when she was running for office."
No, that it was illegal for a corporation (or a union) to produce and air an electioneering broadcast mentioning (favorably or unfavorably) a candidate in a federal election being held within 60 days. That's hardly Patrick Henry territory there.
"A First Amendment that does not protect criticizing political figures is not a First Amendment at all. The amendment that Democrats are putting forward is an attack on basic human rights, the Constitution, and democracy itself. If those who would criticize the government must first secure the government’s permission to do so, they are not free people."
Really? Because I don't see anything in here about asking the government's permission for criticizing government. I see something here about leveling the playing field for people spending money in support of (or opposition to) any candidate. I don't think this means what you think it means — unless your are treating the First Amendment as the Freedom to Spend Money.
"Harry Reid and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, the amendment’s author, should be ashamed of themselves. The First Amendment has been a bulwark of liberty for more than two centuries, since long before either of the states that these vandals represent was even in the Union."
Restrictions on campaign spending were first introduced in 1907, with the Tillman Act. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925) and the Hatch Act (1939) also placed various curbs and restrictions on free speech monetary contributions. Further restrictions went into play in 1943 (the Smith-Connally Act) and 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act).
In 1974, in the aftermath of Watergate, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was amended to impose more comprehensive campaign finance restrictions and expenditures, with further amendments in 1976. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, aka McCain-Feingold) was passed in 2002 and signed into law by George W. Bush.
None of the worthies, of either party, involved in these various exercises (including signing Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, and George W. Bush) didn't see these as restrictions on the First Amendment. And whether you count the 103 years from the Tillman Act to Citizens United,, or the 60 years since the FECA amendments to today, the nation seems to have endured in that time without a totalitarian regime imprisoning en masse of journalists and citizens for criticizing those in power.
Now, honestly, I'd rather we didn't amend the Constitution, on principle. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that, 5-4, they consider spending money to be free speech, and corporations as protected by free speech in this context as natural human beings. If we disagree with that, there's little to do but to amend the Constitution to address the problem.
It seems to me the National Review headline should read, "We'll take Free Spending, Thank You." For my part, I'd like to think we live in a democracy, not a plutocracy, you're welcome.
The Editors – We’ll Take Free Speech, Thank You
Senate Democrats are on the precipice of voting to repeal the First Amendment.
That extraordinary fact is a result of the increasingly authoritarian efforts of Democrats, notably Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, to suppress criticism of themselves and the government, and to suffocate any political discourse that they cannot control.
The Supreme Court in recent years has twice struck down Democratic efforts to legally suppress inconv…
View on Google+
