campaign finance — VOICES for REASONVOICES for REASON

The Citizens United case is a landmark. The Supreme Court struck down parts of America’s campaign finance laws—the parts that forbade corporations from speaking out during election season. I was fortunate enough to moderate a panel discussion on the case, called “Citizens United and the Future of Campaign Finance Law.” (Details on the panel members are here.)

The entire 72-minute discussion is worth listening to—all four panelists were excellent in presenting their diverging viewpoints—but if you’re pressed for time, I urge you to start with Prof. Eric Daniels’ 8-minute discussion of essential issues raised in the case. In this segment, Dr. Daniels makes it clear why he agrees with the result reached by the Supreme Court, but not with the Court’s reasoning. Along the way, he addresses some important questions:

• Is the First Amendment an instrument for achieving so-called social interests, or is it a safeguard of individual rights?
• Why do corporations spend as much money as they do on elections, and is that spending a symptom of a deeper problem?
• Are corporations exercising special privileges when they speak, or are the rights of individuals being exercised?

To locate the Daniels segment, let the video download (click here—may take a few minutes to finish) and then move the slider to the 36:25 mark.

Image: WikiMedia Commons

Stanley Fish, a self-confessed opponent of free speech, reports on a meeting of First Amendment scholars. It provides some fascinating insights into how these scholars think about free speech issues.

One point that I found particularly interesting–or, rather, hair-raising–was the view that the government can regulate the “volume” of speech without undermining freedom of speech.

You may have heard this “volume” metaphor before: supporters of campaign finance regulations frequently use it to suggest that some people’s speech will “drown out” others, the way that a rock band drowns out your voice when you go to place a drink order at a concert. But that’s a false comparison: Rush Limbaugh can pontificate all he wants and that doesn’t prevent me from speaking. (You’re reading this blog, right?)

But the argument Fish describes puts a new twist in that metaphor, and claims that Read the rest of this entry »

The recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee knocked down long-standing restrictions on corporate and union contributions to political campaigns and was a definitive move toward the restoration of free speech in America. Yet many Americans are up in arms over the ruling, viewing the decision as an invitation for rampant corruption in Washington. While people are right to be concerned about political corruption, there’s a serious misunderstanding here about what gives rise to it and how it can be eliminated.

As Yaron Brook explained in a 2008 forbes.com op-ed, the problem is not the “allegedly corrupting influence on money on politics,” but rather subjecting “political speech to the corrupting influence of government control.”

It’s true that in a free system, money does give you a greater ability to get your message out; this is precisely one of the reasons it’s desirable to earn wealth. If this is what campaign finance advocates regard as corrupt, which system would they regard as uncorrupt? One in which a person’s ability to promote his viewpoint is unrelated to the financial resources he’s earned (whether personally or through voluntary contributions).

This is why campaign finance advocates have not been appeased by McCain-Feingold, and are calling for complete public financing of political elections. Under such a system, candidates would no longer have to financially earn the platform from which they speak; instead, the government would furnish candidates with your tax dollars. Of course, not every potential candidate could receive public funding under such a system: Only “serious” candidates would.

Who decides which candidate is serious? Those presently holding government power. There is no surer way to create a political aristocracy in America.

But what of the fear of corporations supporting politicians in exchange for favorable legislation? Isn’t that a form of corruption justifying restrictions on their freedom of speech? The real question is: Just who is corrupting whom? Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court just heard arguments in the case of Citizens United v. FEC concerning whether the government was right to ban Citizens United from airing Hillary: The Movie during the ‘09 elections. You might think that in a country with a First Amendment that would be a short discussion, but under our campaign finance rules, the government imposes severe restrictions on political speech.

One of the attorneys for Citizens United, Theodore Olson penned a Wall Street Journal piece explaining the case and criticizing campaign finance restrictions more generally. While he makes a number of good points, he dances around one of the key arguments used to support those restrictions.

Read the rest of this entry »