New York Times Against Free Speech
Ronald Bailey | November 1, 2005, 1:24pm
The New York Times is determined to stifle free political speech on the internet. In an editorial today, the Times' editors declare:
Now looms a wolfish assault in sheep's clothing: the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which House Republican leaders are suddenly planning to put to a vote on Wednesday so politicians can abuse the Internet as an unregulated outlet for multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. The bill, put on a fast track in the hope that nobody notices outside the political-industrial complex, would exempt the Internet from the hard-won three-year-old reform law that stopped federal officials from tapping corporations, unions and fat cats for unregulated donations in the quid pro quo marketplace.
Apparently the 1st Amendment applies only to corporations and people who actually own a newspaper, radio or TV station. We certainly wouldn't want the rabble to express their unregulated opinions about a political campaign. The Times' editorial adds a nice partisan touch when it implies that it's just the corrupt Republicans who are pushing for this legislation, when in fact it was first introduced last March by Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
What is it about "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" that the Times and other campaign finance "reformers" don't get?
fyodor | November 1, 2005, 6:40pm | #
The government isn't limiting donations *because* they are made to political interests, but rather because unlimited donations would allow a few to effectively control the political process -- creating a monopoly (or oligopoly).
Larry, I just cannot see how the second half of your sentence (after the comma) qualifies the first half the way you presume it to. Of course noble intentions were cited for campaign reform. But in order to effect those noble intentions of leveling the playing field, etc. (and please note I'm leaving aside the issue of whether the stated noble intentions are the true intentions), the law regulates money spent on political interests. The law goes
through your initial clause
to get to the latter clause! When I said, "the monetary transaction in question is to be limited because it contributes to a political campaign," I didn't mean that was the government's end goal. I meant that that was how the law
identifies what money is to be regulated! To say the government can limit money spent on a printing press because there are other means to express oneself is akin to saying that the government can tell you how to exercise your right, in which case it's not a right at all.
Now, if the government tells you that you can't run a printing press that runs on toxic fumes, that's different because the
reason for the restriction has nothing to do with it being a printing press. But campaign finance law has the
purpose of controlling speech, or at least the money spent on it, which directly controls how you can exercise your (now severely limited) right to free speech.
All that said, as long as the law is content neutral, there's going to be some ambiguity to it. But that's why campaign finance laws have been had a slew of mixed results in court, allowing regulations on giving money to others' campaigns yet striking down regulations on spending on your
own campaign, giving us Ross Perot, et al....
