“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – Presidential Oath of Office, Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.
“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” — NY Times, January 25, 2010
Last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that prohibited “electioneering communication”, that is, broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. It is what I and many others dub the “Incumbent Protection Act”, because it tips the scales heavily in favor of incumbents who have the name recognition, and the communication power of their office as an advantage in an election. In addition, the 30 days or 60 days are when many voters really start paying attention. Our elected representatives love to talk tough about reform, but that reform typically ends up making it harder to replace them.
Obama Weighs In
As the above quotes demonstrate, President Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution protects free speech. So why is President Obama attacking a Supreme Court ruling that protects Free Speech? Is that what he is supposed to be doing? Instead he says it “strikes at democracy itself.” He doesn’t mention that it also lifts restrictions on the speech of unions that typically favor the positions of his party. Perhaps that is because with the Obama administration unions have extraordinary access to the White House. From January to July, White House logs show that Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) visited the White House 22 times, more than anyone else in the visitor logs.
If President Obama is truly concerned about the influence of lobbyists, it does no good to drive them out of advertising on TV into personal visits to the White House. Of course, the president would be selective in who has an audience with him. If you really want to reduce the number of lobbyists, then reduce the reasons for them to lobby. If, for example, you want to reduce the lobbying effort of the giant agricultural corporation Archer Daniels Midland, then get the government out of the business of ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, and shut down the federal Department of Agriculture. Lobbyists will call on Washington less, if they have less to call about. Shrinking the federal government will reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence, reduce the deficit, help balance the budget, and make the government more manageable so that we can reduce or eliminate waste and fraud.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling is not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers. His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens argument. In part:
“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….
The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against free speech. I always marvel when people who succeed against tough odds attack the very principles of this country that allowed them to succeed. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority by defining certain rights of every individual that could not be infringed upon. It is one reason why people around the world fight to come here for a chance to succeed. Because they know that these principles will allow them to do so if they have the drive to succeed.
