Protecting the Marketplace of Ideas
On Thursday, January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ringing endorsement of core First Amendment principles. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court struck down a law that prevented corporations and unions from spending unlimited amounts of money to advocate the election or defeat of candidates. The campaign finance laws have long paid grudging respect to an individual’s right to spend money on his own speech, but they prevented groups of individuals like unions and corporations from spending their own money on their own speech. The effect of this “vast censorship,” as the Court called it, was to “muffle the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.”
To anyone who cares about freedom of speech, Citizens United is great news. The case is an important step toward bringing the campaign finance laws in line with a central premise of the First Amendment: that the marketplace of ideas must be left free in order to function and that allowing politicians to tinker with that marketplace by favoring some speakers over others is contrary to the very idea of freedom of speech.
Predictably, supporters of campaign finance laws are apoplectic. They are howling that the Citizens United decision contradicts a long practice of preventing corporate speech during elections and will lead to a corporate takeover of elections. They are wrong on both counts.
In fact, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of corporate rights to free speech in elections until 1978 in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Massachusetts prevented corporations from spending money to influence the outcome of ballot measure elections. The First National Bank of Boston challenged the law, which prevented it from opposing a measure to adopt a graduated income tax. Concluding that the bank’s status as a corporation did not remove its speech from the protections of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court struck down the ban. The First Amendment, reasoned the Court, does not allow government to decide who may speak on what issues. Nor does it permit the state to limit the voices of some to ensure that others may be heard. As the Court stated, “the fact that advocacy may persuade the electorate is hardly a reason to suppress it: The Constitution ‘protects expression which is eloquent no less than that which is unconvincing.’”
Despite its endorsement of corporate speech rights in Bellotti, a decade later the Court changed course and ruled in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that corporations could be prevented from spending money advocating the election or defeat of candidates. According to the majority, corporate status is a gift from the state that can come with strings attached — namely, a restriction on independent spending during elections. This restriction was justified, as the Court saw it, because corporations can amass large amounts of money that “have no correlation to the public’s support for a corporation’s political ideas.” This, in turn, creates the potential that corporations will have a “distorting effect” on the debate.
“Those who believe that money buys elections implicitly believe that voters are too stupid to make up their own minds.”
That would be liberals.
Hence their desire to settle issues in court after people have voted on them (can you say Prop 8 in California?)
jd
”Voters are too stupid” – Well, they elected Obama, Bill Clinton won two elections, Bush was not exactly a genius, there’s always Jimmy Carter to consider, then, just take a look at Congress, that’s a real collection of incompetents, assorted crooks, hacks, & slippery characters, not to mention some morally bankrupt low-life scumbags, liars, & weasels.
It would seem that a fair proportion of the electorate is in the brain-dead catagory.
My question for the 4th world is; Why do you expect corporations to support conservatives? Might not it have something to do with your anti-capitalist programs? Would not changing those programs to pro business, pro employment policies attract corporate contributions?
I wonder if it’s a co-ink-see-dink that the 4th world taking over the Democratic party coincides with the spread of laws stripping corporations of their 1st amendment rights? Will the restoration of those rights lead to the re-birth of the conservative wing of the Democratic party?
Just asking.
What America needs now is more Zed Millers and “Scoop” Jacksons.
Back when conservative Democrats like JFK ran the party, the Democrats were pretty much in control of everything. It worked out pretty well.
Webb and his ilk need to be supported. This ruling will allow that.
If voters are not too stupid to make up their own minds how did Obama get elected?
What about money buying politicians? Does that not count?
I mean under the guise of “supporting a campaign”
What I’m concerned about here is the following scenario: A company that produces sub par military equipment supports a senators campaign fund. The senator returns the favor by using his influence to get government contracts for that company instead of a competing company that produces superior equipment. All perfectly legal.
Is this a far fetched scenario? To my knowledge, it’s the way business is done in Washington. Could this lead to the military waisting money on equipment they don’t need or worse using equipment that gets troops killed? It most likely does every day.
If the author can come up with some alternative way to address this issue, I would be all in favor of whatever he proposes.
Wrong! Liberals BUY elections every year, everywhere.
Wrong again! The American public proves its stupidity every day, everywhere.
But the Supreme was right!
And John MacCain, who put the Nazi muzzle on us that brought on Obamanation, should be horsewhipped, tarred and feathered for the Bozo elitist he really is.
Him and every Country Club Republican look-alike.
Those who believe that money buys elections implicitly believe that voters are too stupid to make up their own minds.
The electorate make up their minds based on their ability to understand the information put before them. In November 2008 they elected as POTUS a totally unqualified candidate who spent considerably more money on his campaign than his opponent and had the support of 90% of the media.
Bush got reelected in 2004 despite nobody with a clue voting for him. The entire 2004 election was a suckers game, from taking advantage of media timidity and ineptness to the relentless BS attacks on Kerry, Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, and so on. Polls have shown time and time again that a good chunk of the American public can be easily confused and manipulated, as with the health care reform “debate”.
Companies spend enormous amounts of money on marketing because it works, and political advertising is no different. Few will admit that that bought a certain new car just because the ads for it got them into the showroom and a slick talking salesperson then got them to sign, and all without them doing any real research on what exactly they were buying and how it compared to alternative options, but it happens. A lot. Why should the results of marketing politicians be any different?
“Few will admit that that bought a certain new car just because the ads for it got them into the showroom and a slick talking salesperson then got them to sign”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Someone apparently has been reading the inane writings of John Kenneth Galbraith. There is simply no such thing as the perfectly effective advertisement. David Ogilvy would burst into laughter hearing anyone suggest otherwise. The car companies constantly compete against each other. Most auto buyers study the matter before signing on the bottom line. A high price ticket item almost always receives intense scrutiny. The irony is that BC is using an example that actually disproves their contention.
Protecting the Marketplace of Ideas
What fraction of voters can remember a time
when they were not so prosperous that they
did not have to care about the inefficiency
and/or corruption of the administration in
power ?
There is an old saying, going back to the Roman Republic, arguably the first representative government,
that goes like this:
“A good shephard fleeces his flock;
He does not flay it.”
The modern, mocking equivalent is:
“When shearing sheep, or voters,
it is wise to stop when one reaches the skin.”
Free political speech allows the public identification
of shephards who have wool between their teeth,and will
have blood on their heads if they continue in office.
The flood of slanderous TV ads at the end of campaigns are only effective if the people are not engaged. The responsibility of good citizenship is to be informed. With the internet and many alternative news sources, there is no excuse for a late flood of negative campaigning to be effective. I agree the Supreme Court does not have a responsibility to counteract poor citizenship.
As far as influence buying on the pols themselves, likewise. Exposure is what we need. Who gets what from whom. Open it all up, and let everyone with a hint of curiosity, as we all should possess, work.
“The electorate make up their minds based on their ability to understand the information put before them.”
Only half accurate. Human beings are not always that passive. Most voters did not consider the 2008 election to be particularly important. They refused to spend a few minutes a day extra to get a clearer understanding of the candidates and the issues. That’s all it would have taken. The dangerous Barack Obama slipped under the radar screen due to indifference.
Look guys we live in a Republic and have Democraticly elected Representatives. In this Republic we have Freedom. In the last 100 years those Freedoms have been eroded slowly. With the Supreme Courts ruling we regained a little of that lost Freedom. Americans can be fooled but not all the time. Elections are a messy business and always will be. Any measure that inhibits someone or some group or corporation from getting thier message out to inform or sway the public is downright wrong. Will this freedom be abused, of course it will be. The problem is that any attempt to “Clean Up” the system will also do more damage than good. When you make rules regarding who gets to say what and when you have decided already who has a right to speak and who has not. If you let Government, any government have the ability to regulate speech then they also have the ability to decide what speech is not allowed anywhere.
There are many dire predictions regarding this decision and the sad truth is that some of these things might happen but they can also be corrected at the ballot box. We will make mistakes from time to time as we have done in the past. It is in the nature of a free people to make these mistakes. Without making these mistakes however we would also never advance. Sometimes in order to confirm what the right direction is you have to take a wrong turn every now and then.
Obama got elected on a vacuous bumper-sticker platform of “CHANGE” and “HOPE” and “WE ARE THE CHANGE WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR.” His ads were plastered all over TV for two years and at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. He got fawning media coverage with minimal scrutiny of his past, his legislative record, his associations, his writings, his lack of accomplishment as a member of the Senate and as a state legislator in Ill., his inexperience, etc. He promised to take public funding for his campaign, and promptly broke the promise – raising over half a billion dollars (much of it flooding in and being laundered through 501(c)3s from outside the US – and outspent his opponent nearly 3-1. Obama received more Wall Street funding than any president in modern history (protection money). Obamacrats don’t get to lecture ANYONE on the influence of money on politics ever again.
And yet, BC probably thought all that was on the up and up. It was fine – it’s only when private corporations who don’t want the government destroying their businesses or destroying the jobs that they provide for citizens to speak their minds. Except for unions and non-profits that support Democrats. Those are going to be exceptions here.
The people who get their information from political ads on TV are the same ones that put Obama in office. We’re all paying for their stupidity now.
Here’s a suggestion – why don’t you pass a law outlawing stupidity? Leave the First Amendment alone (hard for the left to do, I know, because people might not agree with them on a host of issues and be free to tell people so without their interference).
The nation survived for hundreds of years without un-Constitutional legislation such as McCain-Feingold. It will endure after. Now Obama can get some REAL opposition from the people he’s seeking to destroy, and there’s nothing he or the Obamacrats can do about it except to use speech to counter it. No more system-rigging. No more government bans on the free speech rights of people united in their voices.
Change has come. Time to evolve. Right, BC?
Voters too stupid to make up their own mind??
When you consider that 50% of eligable voters are more concerned about Facebook, Twitter and which Hollywood Boob is running around on which Boobette, and of those that do vote 75% are swayed by sound bites over substance, image over issues, I think money can make a difference. Wouldn’t you agree that in this country we have the best political and judicial system that money can buy?
14. Good Lt.
Here’s a suggestion – why don’t you pass a law outlawing stupidity?
Mention that to Obama or Nancy Pelosi — surely they’ll put a tax on it!
To David Thomson: Yeah, right….
It’s not stupidity, but vulnerability to advertising. Every day we are bombarded with commercials all the way from a guy with a plastic head telling us to buy his hamburgers to spokesmen extolling drugs. You can’t tell me that this bombardment doesn’t have any effect. Of course it does, and it’s measurable. So to now allow corporations to pour as much money into political issues and campaigns as they want will influence people or at the very least place doubts in their minds, enough to influence their votes. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.
There will always be stupid people in society. Unfortunately, being stupid is not a capital punishment offense. However, if we take all warning labels off everything on the market, natural events will take care of the problem.
To Good Lt.: What can say other than *all* the people I know who are really, *really* up on what is really going on in government, what has been going on in government, and what things like health care reform are really all about, voted for Obama. No exceptions. Try to spin it all you want, but the less knowledgeable voted for both McCain and then more recently Brown. And don’t think for a second that military experience gives you any better insight.
Enough of this political BS, though — I think I’m going to take Sundays off from this crap — for starters. I’m feeling much like the friend who recently posted, after the Brown victory and this idiotic 5-4 Supreme Court decision, that “American politics is dead to me“. It does seem more like a series of warehouse cockfights in more ways than one rather than anything involving serious debates among reasonably well-informed people of differing ideologies and philosophies.
BC that “Saddam involved in 911″ poll is pure propaganda. A company initially did the poll right after 911 and asked a loaded question such as “How likely do you think it is that Saddam had some personal involvement in the 911 attacks”. Note the question was not worded as “behind” or “responsible for”, just “some personal involvement” which is so vague it can mean many things in the minds of many people that do not include playing a personal role in the attacks themselves.
1/3 said very likely, 1/3 somewhat, 1/3 none/not sure. This translated into headline blaring 70% think Saddam was responsible, which was not what the question asked. They then took the poll again in late 2003, calling the exact same people, and got similar results. For all I know, that polling company tried the same thing multiple times and got only a small sample to say “very likely”, then when they finally ran one that got more, they used that result. Nobody knows, it’s simply a matter of what the polling outfit claims.
American politics and politician have been for sale and bought and sold for many, many years now. Everybody knows that. Whether they are conservative (big business, anti working man). Or liberal (unions, big business, anti working man). And, there is no end in sight. Both sides have their “arsenal of democracy” (millions+millions of dollars) and their slush funds. A whole economy has grown around catering to their election campaigns. Technically though, its how great wealth can be spread around. The trick is to get a business started around gettin the dogs elected and re-elected and drop your youthful idealism. There is big money to be made but little room for “puppy dog beliefs” !! So get started now, the midterms are coming!!
Twice now, in Second and First Amendment cases, Judge Kennedy’s swing vote has rationalized personal self-defense plus opened Free Speech to institutions as well as individuals. Yet a hard-core of four leftist Court incumbents consistently oppose such liberating opinions on specious ideological grounds in virtual abandonment of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, nevermind the actual as-written U.S. Constitution.
Rather than fairly adjudicate Founders’ principles, atavistic reactionaries such as Mde. Sotmayerski will posit collectivist Statist interpretations ’til death do them part: “Judicial temperament” to them is a bad joke. When Judge Kennedy retires, who knows what slippery Statist quota-baby will smirk down from the bench?
Various Church denominations concerned to de-politicize candidacies for ruling Elders select candidates from pre-qualified pools, tapping one of five drawn by lot for elevation to a specified, fixed term. Just so, the country could use a permanent respite from hyper-partisan racial or gender appointees such as crypto-fascist “wise Latinas” (sic) whose not-so-hidden agenda is identity-group aggrandizement at the expense of even-handed Constitutional considerations. This and other simple procedural reforms would go far towards cementing American representative democracy under Rule of Law.
If anyone doesn’t realize the effect of corporations huge money spending on the national debates, all they have to do is look at how politicians operate.
The corporations spending large amounts of money to buy politicians amounts to a guy with a large megaphone shouting in a politician’s face. Everyone else talking normally to the politican won’t be heard because they’re drowned out.
Just ask yourself who will your politician listen to? Joe 6 pack? Or the special interest who deposited money in his campaign chest the other day?
Campaign finance = legalized bribery, and not free speech.
“Those who believe that money buys elections implicitly believe that voters are too stupid to make up their own minds”
Then that includes the political parties and their supporters – and john mccain, in particular, seems to acutely understand the importance of money in campaigning. The ability to buy TV time (and, dare I say it, editorial opinion) has a huge potential to influence voters. To claim otherwise is just daft.
Like I posted in another thread – the problem with third-party spend, IMHO, is the lack of any accountability. If a candidate approves an ad, then that candidate can be challenged on his/her claims in public (and wear the consequences of being caught out). But if some artificially-constructed entity can spread misinformation for them (something we saw a lot of in the last election anyway) then a great deal of high-profile and effective lying can be done on behalf of a candidate without any form of accountability. Nobody can be publicly challenged for it, and by the time the web of funding has been tracked back to who was behind it, the election is over.
This isn’t really a win for free speech. It’s a win for the ability to run a campaign without any accountability. If very rich person X wants to say something, then let rich person X publish it under his own name.
Landru:
“BC that “Saddam involved in 911″ poll is pure propaganda. A company initially did the poll right after 911″
Can you provide some links I can follow? I’m interested.
Anyone who doesn’t think that money buys elections must think that all those PACs, unions, corporations and the lobbyists they hire are too stupid to realize they are wasting all that money.
20. BC:
“What can say other than *all* the people I know who are really, *really* up on what is really going on in government, what has been going on in government, and what things like health care reform are really all about, voted for Obama. No exceptions. Try to spin it all you want, but the less knowledgeable voted for both McCain and then more recently Brown.”
The immense problem with this elitist nonsense is that as people have become MORE knowledgeable about what is really going on in government, what has been going on in government, and what things like health care reform are really all about Obama’s numbers and support have correspondingly fallen.
The evidence belies your position. In order to preserve your self perception of lofty intellect, you hold to the notion that the sophisticated urbane cafe chatters of Boston have the handle on everything your mentioned versus the inhabitants of the Poopkick TX demographic surburbanites.
The people you consider so ill informed are far better grounded in reality and understanding of simple cause and effect than any of your cafe chatters will ever be. Producers and drones have always had that singular relationship, although the producers forget themselves now and again. Brown’s win is very simply explained. The producers remembered just who it is that the drones expect to pay for it all.
In a nutshell, the ants are now telling the grasshoppers to f**ck off.
#12. Absolutely on target! Only 58% of the electorate bothered to vote in November 2008. Obama got in with only 31% of the electorate voting for him.
20. BC.
“Enough of this political BS, though — I think I’m going to take Sundays off from this crap — for starters. ”
Don’t stop there. Why not roll up womb like and wait for Mr. President’s fortunes to change. When and if they do, maybe you will then have the second hand will to continue “cockfighting”.
Are Mr. President’s political fortunes the barometer of your happiness? Why is he so unpopular?
“I’m feeling much like the friend who recently posted, after the Brown victory and this idiotic 5-4 Supreme Court decision, that ‘American politics is dead to me’”.
No, Modern Liberal policies are having a rough go of it because of exposure. Imagine if C-SPAN is allowed into the fort. Who knows, somebody might see Mr. President naked, except for the teleprompter leaf.
“Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked.”
“It does seem more like a series of warehouse cockfights in more ways than one rather than anything involving serious debates among reasonably well-informed people of differing ideologies and philosophies.”
Who is Saul Alinsky? Who is moho, etc. Whatever.
While I’m a big believer in free speech sometimes those with lots of money can paint whatever picture they would like. A preponderance of information about one position can create the illusion that that position is actually the facts. So, while I do believe, that people can make up their own minds, too many people believe or at least are heavily influenced by much of what is on tv and in the media. Perhaps the solution is spending caps for corporations so that they dont’ become the mouthpiece for their management’s opinions.
James Todd
Publisher: BuildMySiteforFree.com
Fox News: “Dem campaign contributor awarded $25M no-bid contract to train ‘legal professionals’ in Afghanistan”
Perfectly legal.
Steve, do you think this is OK? Is this the marketplace of ideas you are talking about?
Evidently, many believe that money buys elections, which is why they try to do so with their money. Last I checked, no party was rejecting money.
If corporation were groups of individuals, I would agree. Unfortunately they are a government-fabricated “person” whose interests often diverge from the “group’ of owners. The problem with this ruling is not the free-speech aspect, it’s the confirmation of the concept of corporate personhood, as discrete from its owners.
BC #20:
“*all* the people I know who are really, *really* up on what is really going on in government… voted for Obama?
So what you’re telling me is that you did read up about The One and knew he was a radical revolutionary Marxist that was going to do implement his marxist agenda on the stupid masses even though we dont want it? Then, you and all your soooper enlightened progressive marxist friends (Lenin called you useful idiots) got together to agree to vote for him? Is that how that played out?
34 Bob: Excellent point! I agree, no corporation has a right to vote and no corporation is a person with the ability to speak (free speech). As you point out, a corporation is just a legal entity.
I cant figure out why a corporation should be able to give money to any pol. It bribery, plain and simple.
McCain Feingold should have been a few dozen words at most. “NO entity that does not FIRST have the legal right to vote for the candidate for office may give/provide any service or money on behalf of that pol”
Hell, judging from some of the rational posts on Huffington post, even some democrats (of the non-progressive type) would agree to that.
The one thing that worries me about this decision is that it treats corporations and unions equally when they are anything but. I agree that if a group of people have combined their time/money to more effectively have their voice heard they should not be silenced; but only if they have come together voluntarily.
This is where the fundamental difference between corporations and unions becomes apparent. Assuming that the corporation is not a government sanctioned monopoly; if I do not agree with the corporation’s political stance I have several options available to me. If I work for the corporation I can seek employment with a competitor. Similarly, if I don’t like the political campaigns the corporation is spending its’ money on I can take my business elsewhere so that I’m not indirectly supporting that which I oppose. With a corporation, I am _giving_ them money in exchange for a good or service; I can choose to keep that money or give it to their competitor at any time that I do not agree with their business practices/policies/politics/etc.
A union member has no such choice. In most (if not all) cases; employment in a unionized company is contingent on membership in the union. There is no choice, membership and dues are compulsive; refusal to join the union results in the termination of employment. The usual remedy of just choosing to work somewhere else is not really a choice as usually whole industries are unionized and the same unions usually represent several or all competitors in an industry. If I wished to completely escape a particular union I would most likely have switch to a completely different industry; abandoning many of the skills that I acquired and having to learn new ones – making it harder for me to compete in the job market. A union _takes_ the money of its’ members while providing little if anything in return; the only way for me to stop supporting the union if I disagree with their policies/politics/etc is to quit my job.
The bottom line is that corporations and unions should not be viewed equally. While there are some options on the table when dealing with a corporation; there are none when dealing with a union.