Did the Citizens United decision place corporations ahead of democracy? Activist Annie Leonard thinks so. CEI’s Communications Director Lee Doren disagrees. Leonard views a strong government as an opposing force to corporate power. Doren points out in a new video that the more government does, and the more it spends, the more companies will flock to Washington to get a piece of the action. If you want to keep money out of politics, then keep politics out of our money.
Posted in CEI Podcast, Free Speech
Tagged annie leonard, bcra, campaign finance, citizens united, Free Speech, lee doren, mccain-feingold
From The Hill: Vulnerable Democrats defend support for campaign finance legislation
Campaign finance regulations are an incumbent’s best friend. The incumbent already has name recognition, and a deep network of fundraising contacts. Heck, Congress’ franking privilege allows incumbents to send out de facto campaign messages for free. Challengers have none of those advantages.
It takes a lot of money to buy enough ads to get a challenger’s name recognition anywhere near the incumbent’s. Campaign finance regulations make it harder to raise that money, and harder to put up a fight against established officeholders. No wonder so many incumbents from both parties favor strict campaign finance regulations! It’s good for their job security.
Posted in Elections, Free Speech, Political Animals
Tagged campaign finance, campaigns, challenger, challengers, citizens united, democrats, Elections, feingold, first amendment, franking, franking privilege, Free Speech, freedom of speech, fundraising, incumbent, incumbents, mccain, political campaigns, regulation, republicans, the hill
In about 20 minutes, I’ll be appearing on Paul Molloy’s radio show to talk about campaign finance regulation and free speech. Give a listen if you’re in the Tampa, FL or Little Rock, AR area.
You can also tune in by clicking here.
Posted in Free Speech, Media Appearances
Tagged campaign finance, citizens united, Free Speech, freedom of speech, paul malloy, radio
“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.”
–Justice Anthony Kennedy, introducing today’s Citizens United decision.
Precisely. The correct way to rebut unwelcome speech is not to silence it. It is to counter it with more speech. Let the best arguments win. Advocating speech restrictions is a fancy way of saying, “my arguments are too weak to withstand criticism.” Get better arguments, then!
Free speech issues aside, there is a reason why McCain-Feingold is informally known as the Incumbent Protection Act. It stacks the deck against challengers. No wonder so many incumbent politicians from both parties have come out against today’s decision. It’s bad for their job security.
Posted in Free Speech, Law, Pith
Tagged anthony kennedy, campaign finance, citizens united, Free Speech, justice kennedy, scotus, supreme court
The First Amendment famously reads, “Congress shall pass no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Congress, ever sneaky, has looked very closely at the First Amendment’s wording. If they can’t pass laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, maybe they can pass laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press.
I kid, of course. No lawyer in their right mind would use that argument in court. The real justifications for most speech and press-abridging laws — collectively known as campaign finance regulations — are actually much flimsier.
They mainly have to do with protecting politicians from criticism. For example, a group called Citizens United released a partisan documentary last year called Hillary: The Movie. Basically a feature-length missive against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and her presidential candidacy, the FEC blocked the movie from pay-per-view television during the 2008 primary season.
The movie was effectively censored because corporations (and unions) are not allowed to engage in certain types of political speech when an election is near. Citizens United lists some corporations among its donors, and thus was not allowed to show the movie as widely as they would have liked.
Citizens United got upset about all this, naturally. So they sued. Their case made it to the Supreme Court last year. Unwilling to make too hasty a decision, the Court re-heard oral arguments yesterday. The early bets are that Citizens United will win a partial victory, though one never knows until the decision is actually handed down.
Had the movie not been about politics, it would have faced no such obstacles. Political speech is treated very differently from other types of speech these days. This is a troubling trend. At heart, campaign finance regulations are a roundabout way of saying: no criticizing candidates!
Perhaps the First Amendment is a bit wordy. “Congress shall pass no law” is quite enough.
