Amendment to undo Citizens United won’t do
A constitutional amendment proposed by congressional Democrats to limit again how much corporations can spend for or against candidates in federal elections is flawed. It attacks one alleged evil — possible electoral and government corruption — with another that runs roughshod over the First Amendment.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., as reported by The Hill, proposed an amendment yesterday that would overturn a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision removing barriers to corporations’ spending their own money, without limit, to campaign for or against a candidate for federal office.
The phrase “unlimited funds,” combined with the idea of corporations’ enjoying free-speech rights, has scared the heck out of a lot of Americans, including many who ordinarily line up to keep the government’s hands off free expression.
In its Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that it was a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech for the government to forbid or limit corporate funding of political broadcasts for or against individual candidates. The ruling effectively gutted much of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law that was aimed at blunting the impact of such spending in elections.
Few likely would debate the motive that Conyers and Edwards say is behind the proposed amendment: fair elections, honest government. But good intentions don’t justify ignoring a basic concept that the Supreme Court majority pointed out in its ruling: Nothing in the First Amendment provides for “more or less” free-speech protection depending on who is speaking.
Besides, corporations — and likely unions, as well — are essentially groups of people who have assembled for a common purpose. That includes for this discussion using their combined resources effectively to support or oppose candidates who will, in their view, do the right things.
Do we really want Congress to have the power to exclude certain groups from participating in political speech? Let’s not forget that although corporations and unions are different in reality, if not law, from individual people, they represent collections of individuals with legitimate interests.
As the Supreme Court held last year, First Amendment protections are strongest for political speech — and being an effective speaker in the marketplace of ideas should not disqualify you from them.
Tags: campaign finance, campaign finance restriction, corporate speech, election, labor union
2 Responses to “Amendment to undo Citizens United won’t do”
Let Us Know What You Think
Note: We cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer/First Amendment Center. Previously, Paulson served as editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today and USATODAY.com.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center. Hudson writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications devoted to First Amendment issues.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
[...] Read more thoughts about the proposed amendment at Firstamendmentcenter.org [...]
I have been sending anderson cooper many letters and also wrote on his blogsite over the last 3-4 years, the hoopla is about extreme violence and dirty politics from out of the deep south on how “The Republic ” was built. This horrific exchange of information has brought us out here in South Carolina very little hope since AC from CNN’s 360 has shown a very lame ability to be authentic and seems too far out of true touch with the ugly reality behind all of these kinds of social phenomenon, that paved the road to real ballistic uprisings and revolutionary trends in our society. The issues were and are real ones and are as completely evil as he and his colleagues should have caught on to by now. Why his administrative partners keep playing only radar and the biggest show of beyond FCC regulations of broadcasting is no real puzzle .., what we fear is the people of our community of national concerns cannot quite understand what AC has in store for who we were and still are addressing the issues that apparently he is too inferior to address and believe in; due to personal conflicts of interests. So why all the horrific abusive caterwauling about a scandal that AC must be another source of trouble instead of support for the American People? ITs a no brainer thats something has really gone all wrong in the last 4 years or more concerning Anderson Cooper and His secret society and all they hold dear as freedom and how it somehow has too much impetus over the SCOOP of the last few years sent to him from allover as to HOW AMERICA the GREAT became TOOO oddly betrayed by MEDIA specialists of PROPAGANDA or real true investigation? WHAT did happen to AC and his girlfriend Kathy Griffin they don’t look at all GOOD or even AMERICAN? GOD HELP US “THE AMERICAN PEOPLE” WE WANT THE TRUTH OUT AS TO HOW WE HAVE BEEN USED BY SOMETHING THAT NEVER EVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AT ALL! I KNOW SOMETHING OR MAYBE I KNOW WHAT TOO MANY OTHERS ALWAYS KNEW: however we want our RIGHTS and WE don’t care about ANOTHER LAME ELECTORAL RACE FOR ANY NEW PROOF OF IMPENDING CHANGE IF WE CAN’T CHANGE YET WHAT NEEDS THE MOST CHANGE “OUR GOVERNMENT” !!!!!!!!GO THRU ANDY AND BELT IT OUT OF HIM WHY HE NEEDS TO CHANGE AS WELL!!!!!