Protecting money
Published September 19, 2014
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, September 19, 2014.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate saved the First Amendment last week.
“I have to say it’s a little disconcerting to see the Democrat-led Senate focusing on things like reducing free speech protections for the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said piously. Democrats were “taking an eraser to the First Amendment.”
What were these “free speech protections for the American people” that were so endangered? The ability of corporations, labor unions and special-interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns.
The reality is that the American people are fed up with the tens of millions of dollars poured into a single race, such as North Carolina’s U.S. Senate contest between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis. Television viewers are inundated by ads that promote one candidate or attack the other. People have little or no idea of who’s responsible for these ads, where the money comes from or what the sponsors want and expect from the candidate once he or she is elected.
McConnell’s right that this is free speech. He’s wrong to suggest the First Amendment would be erased by restoring the limits on campaign spending that existed prior to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010.
Senate Democrats proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and states to once again more strictly regulate campaign fundraising and spending.
This authority would have to be used carefully. Elected officials aren’t known for giving potential challengers the chance to compete on a level playing field. Incumbents usually don’t have to spend as much money to win re-election as challengers need to unseat them.
At the same time, wealthy and powerful organizations have the means to dominate a political playing field. For many years, campaign spending laws have attempted to temper the potential influence of rich donors. For example, there are limits on how much individuals can contribute directly to candidates. So far, these restrictions have not been overturned by the courts.
After last week, however, it’s questionable whether Senate Republicans would support any limits on campaign financing. They all voted against ending debate on the proposed amendment. All Democrats voted for proceeding to a direct vote on the measure. The 54-42 tally meant the bill failed to receive the 60 votes it needed to remain alive for further consideration.
There was little chance it would ever pass since it eventually would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. Republicans called it a political gesture by Democrats. Maybe it was, like proposed “personhood” or “balanced budget” amendments regularly introduced by Republicans.
Even so, polls show most Americans favor reasonable limits on campaign spending. Voters should ask Republican senators, including North Carolina’s Richard Burr, why they think the current big-money political environment is good for our system of government of, by and for the people.
Answering that it’s really all about the First Amendment and freedom of speech is not going to fool many. Americans can tell when politicians are protecting money instead of people.
September 19, 2014 at 8:02 am
Richard Bunce says:
Persons do not lose their First Amendment protections when speaking in a corporate structure using corporate resources no more than persons lose their First Amendment press protections when performing press functions in a corporate structure using corporate resources including for profit corporations BH Media Inc., a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
