These past 12 months have been good for The U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has shown its ability to rationally stand above patrician politics, political correctness, and conservative extremes and do their job. Our Founders designed it to work that way. And our current judges are living up to the responsibility.
In the spring of 2009 the Supreme Court handed down the Heller decision regarding the right of citizens to own a handgun in Washington D.C. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” states The Constitution. The high court made a “common sense” decision when interpreting the Second Amendment’s clause on the right to bear arms. You, as a citizen, have the constitutional right to own a handgun. Our constitutional rights upheld.Recently, the Supreme Court announced another common sense decision regarding the freedom of speech. The court’s decision in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission strengthens the First Amendment and freedom of speech. On docket was a nonprofit political advocacy group film about Hillary Clinton who at the time was a presidential candidate. The film was not supportive of Mrs. Clinton. Under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (McCain-Feingold), corporations and unions were band from “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The foundation of the decision addressed two issues. First, does the First Amendment protect all speech, especially criticism of powerful political figures? Second, who should decide how much Americans can speak during elections?
Our First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen. However, only from the restrictions set by Congress, and, as interpreted in the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too. There are other areas where speech can be abridged or suppressed. For example, in the work place, where employers can restrict your right to speak about politics, religion, legal issues, and just about any other subject. While the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper which would abridge the freedom of the press, news stands may or may not carry any papers its owners' wish.
With the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission decision, the high court rejected limits on corporate spending when expressing their viewpoints as unconstitutional. Corporations and u
nions have the same rights as individuals to spend money on political speech. Justice Kennedy pointed out that to do so otherwise is akin to censorship which is at odds with the fundamentals of First Amendment principles. “Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy…it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people…political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence,” he wrote.
Our First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen. However, only from the restrictions set by Congress, and, as interpreted in the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too. There are other areas where speech can be abridged or suppressed. For example, in the work place, where employers can restrict your right to speak about politics, religion, legal issues, and just about any other subject. While the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper which would abridge the freedom of the press, news stands may or may not carry any papers its owners' wish.
With the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission decision, the high court rejected limits on corporate spending when expressing their viewpoints as unconstitutional. Corporations and u
nions have the same rights as individuals to spend money on political speech. Justice Kennedy pointed out that to do so otherwise is akin to censorship which is at odds with the fundamentals of First Amendment principles. “Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy…it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people…political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence,” he wrote. The era of the arbitrary exemption of media corporations under McCain-Feingold, is now over. The decision was expressed this way. A corporation that owns its own newspaper retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. “At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue,” wrote Justice Kennedy. “This differential treatment can not be squared with the First Amendment.”
President Obama wasted no time with his latest populist persona by referring the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall street banks, health insurance companies” and other “special interests.” Any mention of the SCEU and other unions supportive of Obama was absent. The political spending of these unions are also protected by the ruling. It will be difficult to accept that no longer will any one group have a monopoly on free speech.
The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act banned corporate contribution under the assumption of preventing corruption. Such corporate spending, the law suggested, would distort elections. It is assumed that the amount of money corporations have available creates inequities in speech, thus unfairly controlling democracy. However, this position was at odds with previous Supreme Court decisions that stated creating a political level playing field could not justify campaign finance restrictions. The reasoning of the court being that in order to create that level playing field, the government would be forced to ensure some people or groups spent less than they desired. The United Citizens decision affirmed that an equality of speech is contrary to protecting government’s intrusion on speech…which is at the essence of The Constitution’s conception of speech.
It’s been proposed that under the new ruling, businesses will have a dominate position in the candidate discussions during elections. Prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, corporations could spend freely on advertisements for or against a candidate. However, this made up a rather small part of election-related speech. (After all, being partisan is not good for business). Special interest groups dominated election-related speech.
Vice President Biden argues that a flood of foreign dollars, and thus influence, will corrupt our democracy. But foreign corporations will not be able to determine the outcome of an election. The Citizen’s decision nullifies the blanket band on corporate contributions as outlined in Part 2 US Code 441b. However, Part 2 US Code 441E, which specifically bands foreign interests and nationals from making contributions to a political campaign, is not addressed in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission. It is left alone. Therefore, this band will continue.
The Supreme Court has supported that the First and Second Amendments do have force. The American people have the right to bear arms and decide how much to spen
d on political speech. Congress’s endless and misguided gun laws and campaign finance arguments have reached a Constitutional dead-end. And the Constitution has been affirmed.
President Obama wasted no time with his latest populist persona by referring the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall street banks, health insurance companies” and other “special interests.” Any mention of the SCEU and other unions supportive of Obama was absent. The political spending of these unions are also protected by the ruling. It will be difficult to accept that no longer will any one group have a monopoly on free speech.
The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act banned corporate contribution under the assumption of preventing corruption. Such corporate spending, the law suggested, would distort elections. It is assumed that the amount of money corporations have available creates inequities in speech, thus unfairly controlling democracy. However, this position was at odds with previous Supreme Court decisions that stated creating a political level playing field could not justify campaign finance restrictions. The reasoning of the court being that in order to create that level playing field, the government would be forced to ensure some people or groups spent less than they desired. The United Citizens decision affirmed that an equality of speech is contrary to protecting government’s intrusion on speech…which is at the essence of The Constitution’s conception of speech.
It’s been proposed that under the new ruling, businesses will have a dominate position in the candidate discussions during elections. Prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, corporations could spend freely on advertisements for or against a candidate. However, this made up a rather small part of election-related speech. (After all, being partisan is not good for business). Special interest groups dominated election-related speech.
Vice President Biden argues that a flood of foreign dollars, and thus influence, will corrupt our democracy. But foreign corporations will not be able to determine the outcome of an election. The Citizen’s decision nullifies the blanket band on corporate contributions as outlined in Part 2 US Code 441b. However, Part 2 US Code 441E, which specifically bands foreign interests and nationals from making contributions to a political campaign, is not addressed in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission. It is left alone. Therefore, this band will continue.
The Supreme Court has supported that the First and Second Amendments do have force. The American people have the right to bear arms and decide how much to spen
d on political speech. Congress’s endless and misguided gun laws and campaign finance arguments have reached a Constitutional dead-end. And the Constitution has been affirmed. Publius
2 comments:
The press did a fine job somewhere between barely mentioning this historical decision and making it bi-partican. Thanks for obviously reading it and summarizing the issues well.
Paine
test
Post a Comment