Money=Free Speech?
The Supreme Court will interrupt their summer break to decide whether the need to avoid all restriction on speech requires lifting restrictions on politically-funded media torpedoes like "Hillary: The Movie", a 2008 attempt by conservative group Citizens United to discredit Senator Clinton during the presidential primaries. That they are altering their schedule is interesting, suggesting to me that they want to hurry up and overturn the McCain-Feingold provision prohibiting corporations, unions and special interest groups from using money from their general treasuries for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that refer to a candidate for federal office during election season. A lower court ruled against allowing the 90-minute movie to be distributed over cable TV, citing the law.
Former Solicitor-General Ted Olsen, who previously encouraged David Brock to publish known falsehoods against Anita Hill in order to undercut her attack on Clarence Thomas, is going to argue in front of Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy (the likely majority) that "When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong and it is as sure a sign as any that a return to first principles is in order."
I agree with Ted. Let's restore the principle that speech is speech. Money is not speech. No law restricts making a DVD and going door-to-door to hand out a movie of lies and innuendo. McCain-Feingold restricts spending institutional money. Since "general treasuries" can't separate out those people whose contributions they would not want spent on politics, the law has a moral basis. But what about a privately-owned publisher that funds a political book or movie?
It is the court precedent of setting money as speech that is the problem. I'll break ranks with those Senate worthies and suggest money always finds a way to be spent, skirting laws that try to channel it or stop it. Publicizing who is spending might be all we can reliably achieve. With the 1st Amendment looming, common-sense laws about clearly political books and movies are not possible. I'm mostly in sympathy with that, since one might have found the government stopping the TV movie "The Day After", about a major nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union, since it might have affected arms negotiations, or Michael Moore's movies. Unfortunately, it protects Jerome Corsi, too.
Good.
It's about time the Supreme Court come to its senses and understand the true meaning of the 1st Amendment right to free speech.
As long as the speaker is correctly identified to the listener, the government should not have the power to intervene.
In terms of this specific case, if the public record correctly identifies the contributors to the funding of the production of this movie, the government should not have the legal right to prohibit its use.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 5, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Moyers had on Floyd Abrams on last night, and I understood he is the attorney for Citizens United who will argue the case in front of the court. Maybe I have it wrong, but he is at the very least an avowed free speech advocate, he was on the team of attorneys defending the NYT for having published the Pentagon Papers. His arguments are interesting.
Opposing him on the program was former headof the FEC Trevor Potter. It was a fascinating discussion, and both men spoke of the unintended consequences of any broad decision the Court might make. I was dismayed that Potter seemed okay with McCain-Feingold, even though the PAC loopholes are big enough to drive a corporate truck through.
One issue discussed was that shareholders haven't had to sign off on the contributions essentially made in their names (via $$$) to candidates or judges.
Moyers did a great job of arguing and asking questions.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Court gave its official okey-dokey to the movie, and said Citizens United hadn't committed a crime, but if they do, and structure their opinion broadly, look out.
It was interesting that each and every time Abrams mentioned the word "corporations," he also said "and unions."
the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/transcript4.html
the video:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch2.html
September 5, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do we suspect this Court would not be quick to find for the plaintiff if it were the NEA or SEIU?
It is a losing battle to keep money out of politics, or every conceivable field, for now. It affects decisions by libraries, museums, hospitals. When the money is big enough, no decision is possible except to go for the money. What needs to happen is for money aggregation to be devalued financially and morally. Unfortunately, I see no hope of that since the rest of the world will also chase big money.
September 5, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There have been small grass-roots movements in which candidates for state office refuse even PAC money. Sometimes they have even won their elections! But what a long, arduous road that would be, even were it to catch on nation-wide. I agree, I just don't see too much hope.
I hope you can watch the clip; even Abrams admitted he can see room for laws that might measure the size of a corporation, and limit some "contributions" (see bribes.)
The declarations farrar is talking about up above are silly caveats in that there are countless shell corporations and holding companies that can hide the original source of the money, and besides, who cares? It's a crappy system that Moyers said even Thomas Jefferson was worried about.
Moyers and Potter made the case that there is a dividing line between supporting ideas or candidates that attempt to help citizens, and those who want to boost PROFITS. I agree.
Morality??? "We don't need no stinkin'...."
September 5, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it protects Jerome Corsi, too.
Collateral damage. What's a mother to do?
Disclosure is about all that can be demanded.
September 5, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Three things might help, mho. First, revisit the question of whether political figures have to prove malicious intent to gain a libel conviction.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Granted that if this were applied evenly it would mean that left libels would be actionable as well as right libels, but maybe that might be worth it. It would mean that everyone in the political arena would have to be more careful in their free speech--truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel so we just have to make sure we speak the truth. I don't want my side to swiftboat any more than I want the other side to swiftboat.
The second thing would be to un-define corporations as people. http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/
And the third would be full disclosure of political contributions above a minimum amount.
September 5, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it had already been established that corporations were people, well, individuals, but Potter maintained that wasn't quite true YET. But that the Supreme Court might make it so. I hope some of your lawyerly-minded :-} idividuals would watch the clip, and say what you get from it. Disclosure doesn't seem to work, so much of it is hidden, and legally, seemingly. It's one of the reasons propublica and mediamatters and factcheck are so helpful to US, but not the other muliple millions of Amurricans.
It will be interesting to see what our Newest Justice has to say on the matter, won't it? Turley keeps telling us she ain't no liberal.
September 5, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If corporations are people, then they must be bound by physical human law, as in they die after an average lifespan. All of them older than 75 years or so should be dissolved immediately. That includes quite a few of our oldest and biggest banks.
This was a protection that was a common-sense addition in the 1700s. It's time has come again.
September 5, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, a healthy use for those death panels!
September 5, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea, Bwak.
September 5, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget a 100% estate tax too.
September 5, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. I've been seeing a lot of comments elsewhere questioning businesses pretending to be people and was wondering when the precedent had been set. It really begs the question, if they do have people rights, then are they registered voters?
September 6, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link to the show wendy davis is talking about:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1243089757
September 5, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched it last night and it was quite interesting to say the least. Potter explained that corporations are "artificial beings" created by governments as an entity.
I wonder if any has argued that corporations aren't citizens because they aren't counted by the government in the U.S. censuses as one person they way the U.S. government actually--or is supposed to--count each U.S. citizen?
Corporations don't go through the very complicated process of human reproduction or birth. How could they receive the same rights as human beings who happen to be citizens in the United States?
Another argument Potter made had to do with multi-national corporations. He wondered what influence they have on our political process? We supposedly don't allow foreign nationals to have this so-called free speech or put free speech=money into our political process.
September 5, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, and they have no birth certificates! I like it!
September 5, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question on the multinational corporation. A company I use to work for DRS of which 93% of the company's sales are to the U.S. government, was bought out an Italian company lock, stock and barrel.
September 6, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, see the link amike provided to Reclaim Democracy above. It explains the historical context.
You and I are "natural persons". Corporations are "artificial persons". Originally, corporations were very well regulated and granted privleges by the State of incorporation. The result of the Santa Clara case, which was not an actual decision by the Court, was to bestow all the Constitutional rights granted to We the People onto corporations. This was a total corruption of the intent of the Founding Fathers and has predictably led us to the corporatocracy that now rules our country and much of the world.
Your comment about free speech is very germane. It seems to me that there was a suit against FOX news for making false statements. Their defense was that even though they are a "news" organization they still have the right of free speech. FOX prevailed.
Overturning the doctrine of corporate personhood would go a long way to setting our ship aright. There is also an effort to lobby for publically funded elections. See:
http://youstreet.org/
September 6, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The intent of free speech is to allow ideas to compete freely. Saying "Speech is speech," is meaningless! There are many kinds of speech for many purposes. To be influential, speech requires an audience. For short term political speech (intended to influence short term political outcomes), a large fraction of the audience in the particular arena is required. This requires money. We may not like it, but that is a fact. Because I happen to run a large media corporation, does it follow that I can use my control of other people's money to shout down everyone else? That seems contrary to the democratic ideal. Corporations have no inherent right to "free speech," or anything else, for that matter.
September 5, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
At what point does speech worthy of some sort of free speech protection (money) acquire it's equal application protection?
September 5, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink