Hillsdale College, Free Speech, and Citizens United.
I enjoy the Imprimis publication of Hillsdale College. I am mostly progressive but I nevertheless see much in conservatism that is to my liking. The conservatives' position on free speech is particularly good and a recent article speaking about certain assaults on free speech from the left made very valid points. In particular, the IRS targeting of conservative organizations and Scott Walker's public union reforms. Support for the writer's premise was more than adequate except when it came to the Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
Who amongst us would yell at the top of our lungs at someone with a megaphone? If by desperation, we were to do this, what effect would we think it would have on the audience? There's a reason the police use megaphones and have laws restricting the peoples use of them. In essence, Citizens United gave a megaphone to corporations while, ipso facto, muffling the voice of the common man.
In giving pro-active solutions to free speech impediments, the article goes on to give this one and only ludicrous one, "We need to push corporations to grow backbones and to defend more aggressively their free speech interests--rather than leaving the defense to others." First of all, who would be sufficiently motivated and resourceful to defend an entity whose sole goal is the acquisition of money? No one but a major stockholder, I'd say; but they wouldn't need any prodding. As for the corporation itself, those who are in the fortune 500 would hardly go out of their way to espouse one social position or another thereby risking revenues from half their clientele who happen to have an opposing position. The activists on the left would have an easy time of it if Exxon were to come out against their liberal ideas, and, because, of the free speech that Imprimis promotes, it would be their unalienable right to send out the appropriate emails and tweets.
A corporation's only gain in exercising their First Amendment right is to ensure that legislation does not impact their bottom line. This, via corporate lobbyists, has always been accomplished fairly well. Now, it seems, they need to ensure that corporation-friendly officials are elected to government. To repeat the metaphor mentioned earlier, who amongst us can compete with the megaphone that corporations have been handed via Citizens United?
For any reasonable person to embrace Citizens United, he/she must first dismiss the words of James Madison in Federalist paper #57, "who are to be the electors of the Federal representatives? Not the rich more than than poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names more the humble sons of unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the United States." This quote sends shivers down my spine every time I recall it, and those who consider themselves champions of the U.S. Constitution should do well to memorize them and know that our constitution was meant for the common man and not just for "daddy warbucks." However, daddy warbucks now has the megaphone and has, imho, a distinct advantage over the rest of us.
Who amongst us would yell at the top of our lungs at someone with a megaphone? If by desperation, we were to do this, what effect would we think it would have on the audience? There's a reason the police use megaphones and have laws restricting the peoples use of them. In essence, Citizens United gave a megaphone to corporations while, ipso facto, muffling the voice of the common man.
In giving pro-active solutions to free speech impediments, the article goes on to give this one and only ludicrous one, "We need to push corporations to grow backbones and to defend more aggressively their free speech interests--rather than leaving the defense to others." First of all, who would be sufficiently motivated and resourceful to defend an entity whose sole goal is the acquisition of money? No one but a major stockholder, I'd say; but they wouldn't need any prodding. As for the corporation itself, those who are in the fortune 500 would hardly go out of their way to espouse one social position or another thereby risking revenues from half their clientele who happen to have an opposing position. The activists on the left would have an easy time of it if Exxon were to come out against their liberal ideas, and, because, of the free speech that Imprimis promotes, it would be their unalienable right to send out the appropriate emails and tweets.
A corporation's only gain in exercising their First Amendment right is to ensure that legislation does not impact their bottom line. This, via corporate lobbyists, has always been accomplished fairly well. Now, it seems, they need to ensure that corporation-friendly officials are elected to government. To repeat the metaphor mentioned earlier, who amongst us can compete with the megaphone that corporations have been handed via Citizens United?
For any reasonable person to embrace Citizens United, he/she must first dismiss the words of James Madison in Federalist paper #57, "who are to be the electors of the Federal representatives? Not the rich more than than poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names more the humble sons of unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the United States." This quote sends shivers down my spine every time I recall it, and those who consider themselves champions of the U.S. Constitution should do well to memorize them and know that our constitution was meant for the common man and not just for "daddy warbucks." However, daddy warbucks now has the megaphone and has, imho, a distinct advantage over the rest of us.
Comments
Post a Comment