I've yet to comment on the recent US Supreme Court Decision in the Citizens United case - the case in which the Supreme Court held that Corporations may spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries for political advocacy - including support for particular candidates. I have many thoughts - most of them negative - But I've been too busy to think them through.
I did have one thought that I'm ready to share. There is a long line of Supreme Court cases upholding what are called "Time, Place, and Management" restrictions on speech. Legislative bodies are constitutionally prohibited from interfering with the content, or limiting the amount, of speech. But legislatures are allowed to regulate when and where speech occurs. For example, when the President appears at an event, city officials sometimes designate an area for protesters - usually too far away for anyone to notice their protests, but that is another matter. This infringement, justified by the need to keep the president safe, is perfectly constitutional. Other examples abound. You can say what ever you want, but you can't say it in the middle of the freeway, or inside the city park after hours.
Congress could confine political speech to particular broadcast channels that are dedicated solely to political speech. Access to these channels could be provided free of charge to anyone with a television/radio. Citizens who wanted to watch/listen to political commercials could tune in. Those who didn't want to watch/listen could tune out.
Perhaps we could allow actual candidates to buy adds on all the other broadcast channels, provided that they do it with money raised from actual human beings, but restrict all other forms of political advocacy to these "protest area" channels?
In some ways, this is a very radical proposal - it would revolutionize the way politics is done. Still, it is consistent with Citizens United and other Supreme Court precedents. It allows corporations (like those pesky protesters way over there) to speak in a publicly accessible place to their heart's content. The fact that the vast majority of us wouldn't tune in to listen, and that this would limit the "actual" ability of corporations and other entities to influence elections, is no skin off anyone's teeth - it is no different than the problem protesters face in getting people to come to the remote location to listen to them.
Any thoughts?
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
1 comment:
I haven't see anyone flesh out this question: Would the current court see publicly funded elections as unconstitutional? Did Citizens United do away with various Clean Elections laws that have already (in, say, Oregon and CT) been passed? At a glance, it looks like the SCOTUS sees nearly all restrictions on campaign money as unconstitutional.
Also, does this decision have any effect on various anti-corruption laws? It seems to me that the usual question asked in political corruption cases--was there a quid pro quo--is somewhat mute when campaign funding is largely unrestricted.
I'm not at all surprised that the SCOTUS decided the way they did--this has been a goal of the conservative court for years--but I am surprised that they didn't do a better job of handling the legal arguments--which look weak, at best. Also, it's interesting that they didn't spell out the consequences of the decision. It seems likely that we'll be seeing legal fallout from this case for years and it's unclear to me why the court wouldn't want to nip some of those challenges/extensions/etc. now.
Post a Comment