This case, however, is about independent expenditures, not soft money. When Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy. If elected officials succumb to improper influences from independent expenditures; if they surrender their best judgment; and if they put expediency before principle, then surely there is cause for concern. We must give weight to attempts by Congress to seek to dispel either the appearance or the reality of these influences. The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment ; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
But to return to, and summarize, my principal point,which is the conformity of today’s opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment. The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers.
A lot about the Citizen's United decision is strange to me. For one, Citizen's United presented the case that "as-applied" to their case McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. I agree with this. The majority, though, dismissed the "as-applied" argument and declared the law facially unconstitutional. The arguments they present are not without merit. Having to go to the Supreme Court to determine whether speech is constitutional is kind of a big restriction, for instance. What bugs me about this decision is it's absolutely the first time I've ever seen this court answer a broader question than it's asked. In fact, it's disturbingly impressive the lengths this court usually goes to to avoid answering even the narrowest questions it's been asked. Can the military detain U.S. civilians as enemy combatants? Well, yeah, sometimes, but they're not exactly sure how or when since the case wasn't filed in the correct court in the first place. That sort of thing is par for the course. Declaring that the Constitution states that corporations are people with free speech which is also known as money, when they were simply asked if advertising an on-demand political piece is something congress should have the right to restrict, is way out of character. They've ducked gay marriage for eons. Why were they so quick to jump on corporate personhood, without even being asked about it?
Cynicism inducing questions aside, the above quotes, taken from two majority opinions, are something worth thinking about. It's hard to argue against the proposition that more opinions are better than fewer. Speech is the thing. If the speakers are corrupt, if the politicians are corrupt, if people are duped, those are things that should be addressed on their own. Restricting the what, who, when and where of an opinion is a supreme cop-out, really. Also, saying GM can't pay a PAC to do electioneering for them, is saying that GE, or some other corporation entangled with a "legitimate" media outlet is going to be doing all the electioneering. Who has had more influence on U.S. policy, the Koch brothers or William Randolph Hearst? Rupert Murdoch doesn't really need a Super-PAC.
So now that I've played the Devil's Advocate for the Citizen's United decision, what's the alternative? A democracy that is bought and sold by a dozen billionaires instead of just a couple? Doesn't really sound any better to me. I've got some ideas. Let's hear yours.
Show Posts
