Ok, this is plainly political. But if it came about, I wouldn’t be able to post it. And that’s the real issue here — there is an actually amendment language that would cause this limit. I’m not kidding.
It is reported in The Nation that certain leftists (notably John Kerry, Donna Edwards, and Russ Feingold) want to control corporate influence on election. As is stated:
Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards turned to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis for guidance in framing the Constitutional amendment she proposed Tuesday as the right and necessary response to the decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and a high court majority to abandon law and precedent with the purpose of permitting corporations to dominate the political discourse.
That’s all well and good, at least in sentiment. None of us wants the power of the government limited to the control of a few corporations. But there is another, more serious problem. But first some background. A rather important sentence first, the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And here is what they propose:
JOINT RESOLUTION
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘‘ARTICLE–
‘‘SECTION 1. being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”
See anything that presents an issue? Lots. And lots. here’s a few serious concerns:
1. It attempts to disrupt our representative system with terminology that represents direct democracy when it says that the sovereign right of the people to govern has somehow been affected and requires remediation.
2. It defines the power of government to limit all political speech by any incorporated entity. And, if being religious and moral statements are defined as a political restriction on some group’s political power, then that speech is prohibited. Like the Boy Scouts’ promotion of religious and moral straightness. Or by a church opposing abortion or homosexual activity. Or morality rules in a church’s bylaws.
3. It attempts to protect the press but says nothing about free assembly for self-determined purposes, individual speech, and especially nothing about religious liberty. And that is a serious issue. This represents a centralized power grab that we ought oppose. Our purpose for assembling may then be defined by the government. And that is frightening.
This amendment would give authority to Congress to limit speech. This type of power grab by Edwards, Feingold, and Kerry is good reason to remove them from office.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:14 pm | #1
That is disturbing, particularly coming from a Congresswoman.
Though I wouldn’t worry about it too much- in their considered wisdom the Founders made it virtually impossible to make such a radical change to the Constitution. I’m more concerned about non-Amendment legislation (McCain/Feingold, for one) and Court decisions moving towards the same end and thus slipping around the process…
February 5th, 2010 | 2:14 pm | #2
Ok, this is plainly political.
Just want to say that it doesn’t bother me a bit. A few years ago when I started reading blogs and trying to blog myself (went nowhere — don’t ask) it was, like, completely OK for an evangelical to blog about politics. Now, every time I see a post about a political issue, someone is always right there to decry how the culture war has ruined evangelicalism and we need to get back to what we are supposed to be doing in the first place and be loving and kind to people which the culture warriors never are and take care of the environment and leave nasty politics to the heathen and blah blah blah. I think a post like this is completely appropriate to this site and it distresses me that it has to start with the writer offering a mild apology/warning about it.
Well, that was a rather tangential comment, but there it is. The post is very much to the point. “Political speech,” if not defined a priori could be, and given the record of our courts, probably would be stretched to include speech on a whole host of public issues. And this would, indeed, gut the first amendment.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:42 pm | #3
Over the years there have been so many fears that never came to fruition. But this is a case where actual language has been drafted and major names are behind it. It it were April 1, I might laugh or cry.
February 5th, 2010 | 3:06 pm | #4
4. Newspapers, magazines, networks, radio, cable news outlets, et al. are corporate entities. So would they be regulated or not?
My guess is that Democrats would try to have “journalist” become a guild designation, and further regulate speech by determining who is a journalist deserving of free speech (MSNBC, Huffington Post, Sen. Franken) and who isn’t (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, evangelical churches).
February 6th, 2010 | 11:51 am | #5
1. It attempts to disrupt our representative system with terminology that represents direct democracy when it says that the sovereign right of the people to govern has somehow been affected and requires remediation.
I don’t understand this. Could you elaborate? Do you mean that we should trust citizens to be smart enough to make an informed decision when they vote? That if an Eeevil Corporation spends lots of money on ads, we should have faith in the American public to see through it?
2. It defines the power of government to limit all political speech by any incorporated entity.
Does it? As I read the Amendment, I think that it only deals with expenditures for political speech. Maybe that means that you can say whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want, but if you use public channels like the radio or broadcast television, you could be limited.
If you used a different medium that was NOT regulated by the government (e.g., a church gathering, a newspaper, a magazine article) you would face no such restrictions. Maybe that’s too charitable a way of reading the amendment.
3. It attempts to protect the press but says nothing about free assembly for self-determined purposes, individual speech, and especially nothing about religious liberty.
The amendment is explicitly narrow in its scope: it can only limit the expenditures on political speech by a corporation. You might argue that these restrictions have a tendency to grow, but that’s something for the courts to check and balance against.
I oppose this amendment because I think that the benefits of free speech outweigh the costs of some institutions having undue influence on a ‘free democracy’. But seeing the Federal Boogeyman lurking just around the corner hoping to put the Kibosh on the Boy Scouts is an overreaction.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:25 pm | #6
1 Unless the corporation is buying votes, the effect will balance out. The Left has the majority of media outlets in its pocket. Not to mention union support.
1.1 The choice of which corporations to limit is arbitrary. That is left to Congress.
2. The definition of “political speech” is left undefined. Again, that can be arbitrarily defined by Congress.
2.1 Expenditures would likely, consistent with our current situation, include the use of existing resources.
3. It is not narrow with its definition of corporation and would include non-profits as they are also incorporated.
3.1 Again, “political speech” can have its arbitrary effect as defined by particular judges. Given the habits of the 9th circuit court over the past decades, and that the Scouts had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, I think history diminishes the idea that this is an over-reaction.
There is another a priori problem with it — it redefines political property. That leaves us in some serious danger, changing whether rights can be and are natural (in any sense) or whether they are conferred by by governing bodies.
February 6th, 2010 | 7:45 pm | #7
Often Congress doesn’t even “define” what it means in legislation. It leaves it by design to bureaucrats, just as they tried to do in the health care take over. Vast areas were to be “defined” by the Sec of HHS. Truly troubling.
Maybe corporations should start news divisions so they can be part of the “free” press.
February 7th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #8
One unintended consequence of this legislation will be corporations restructuring themselves to be legally considered “press”. Every corporation will try to purchase a news outlet or create a new one. And while everyone is falling over themselves trying to find the nearest loophole, the slippery definition of “press” will empower judges to determine who does and does not lose their right to free expression.
The inclusion of “limited liability companies” makes the situation even worse, because the number of LLCs far outweighs the number of major corporations. An LLC can be five people in someone’s basement … five people who will no longer be allowed to use their assets to promote a political point of view if they get on the wrong side of a federal judge.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact