Sotomayor vs. the First Amendment

June 9, 2009 by Don Watkins

Campaign finance restrictions are the most egregious violation of Americans’ right to free speech today. By capping contributions to political candidates, and even outlawing certain kinds of political ads close to Election Day, these restrictions place political speech under political control. So it’s disturbing to learn that Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is on record supporting such restrictions. From the New York Times:

In 1996, Judge Sonia Sotomayor delivered a speech comparing campaign contributions to “bribes” and asking whether elected officials could credibly say they were “representing only the general public good, when private money plays such a large role” in helping them win office.

“If they cannot, the public must demand a change in the role of private money or find other ways, such as through strict, well-enforced regulation, to ensure that politicians are not inappropriately influenced in their legislative or executive decision-making by the interests that give them contributions,” she said.

ARC’s Yaron Brook, in a devastating critique of campaign finance laws, provided the answer to Sotomayor’s “justification” of these restrictions:

Can’t large contributions buy political favors? They can—when politicians have power to grant special favors to special interests in the first place. In today’s Washington, it’s not just money that purchases favors. Politicians dispense favors for the sake of prestige (say, their name on a bridge), for the purpose of appeasing vocal critics lobbying against them, for the attempt to win your vote (say, a pet project in your district that will create jobs), etc.

It’s not money that corrupts—it’s the lure of arbitrary political power. A true crusader against political corruption would not strip American citizens of their right to free speech; he would seek to put an end to the government’s power to grant special favors to any group.

As my colleague Tom Bowden has pointed out, Sotomayor believes that it’s impossible for judges to objectively interpret and apply the law. It’s hardly a surprise, then, that she has failed to recognize this threat to one of the clearest, most important principles of the Constitution: freedom of speech.