First Amendment freedoms can be burdensome and pesky, provided they are not being used to advance a rationale in favor of undermining national security, according to a Jan. 22 New York Times article. The same newspaper that had no qualms about reporting on the details of CIA detention centers in the aftermath of 9/11 is now concerned about the fallout to certain states from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the government ban on corporate and union political spending.
“The states that explicitly prohibit independent expenditures by unions and corporations will be most affected by the ruling,” reporter Ian Urbina observes. “The decision, however, has consequences for all states, since now they are effectively prohibited from adopting restrictions on corporate and union spending on political campaigns.”
And this is a bad thing? With this year’s elections still several months away, it would seem that this is an appropriate moment to ask states to revisit laws that may be offensive to the clear language of The First Amendment.
Except that The Times is more motivated to lament legal action on the part of “conservative and “pro-business” groups aimed against unconstitutional statues. The restoration of free speech activities should be viewed as a point of administrative consternation, the article suggests. The legal reasoning in favor of unfettered political activism that is consistent with long-standing American principles goes unmentioned.
The 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC cut the heart out of the McCain-Feingold laws that insulate political figures from organized criticism in the run-up to elections. The dissenting opinion from Justice John Paul Stevens that highlights state burdens is given space and attention, while the majority opinion and concurring rulings that argue against government sanctions where free speech is concerned are ignored.
This is not to say that the article does not touch on important and legitimate points. The highest court’s longest serving liberal justice certainly deserves airtime as does the idea that states must come to terms with new legal realities.
But somehow the burdens and restrictions that have been positioned against political advertising go unmentioned as does the unsettling idea that movies and books could conceivably have been banned under certain circumstances, if a majority of justice had joined with Stevens.
Popularity: 3% [?]
