Over 16,525,888 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and
appropriately struck down government prohibitions on many sorts of
privately-funded political advertising. In doing so, legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, the court "upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free
speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate."
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated
as a question about campaign finance laws and whether they apply to an
unflattering film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton. After the
government argued that campaign finance laws could even lead to bans
on books, the Court ordered a rare re-argument to address the broader
constitutionality of limiting corporations' independent spending
during federal election campaigns.
It was a question of "ancient First Amendment principles," the Court
stated in its majority opinion. It is no coincidence that the rights
to free speech and assembly are among the first mentioned in our Bill
of Rights -- our Founders recognized that these rights are essential
to the preservation of a free government.
"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold
officials accountable to the people," Spakovsky argues. But the right
to free speech is not limited to individual persons, he argues.
For-profit and non-profit organizations are greatly "affected,
damaged, or even lost" by the laws Congress passes, so there is "no
rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent
political activity."
Those who criticize the Court's 5-4 decision fail to recognize a key
component about this critical First Principle: free speech "is written
in terms of 'speech,' not speakers," as Justice Scalia explained in a
concurring opinion. It is a right that applies to all. To deny it
would be an obfuscation of the written law and a violation of a
fundamental right.
