SUPER PACs: Occupy the Courts and the Fight for Free Speech
by Bob EwingThis past weekend marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United. Protesters, dubbed Occupy the Courts, gathered at the Court to voice their disapproval of the decision:
As Institute for Justice campaign finance expert Paul Sherman explains in the video above:
The irony of those protests is that you had groups of people getting together to speak out against a Supreme Court decision that protected the right of people to get together and speak out.
Indeed, people should not lose their right to free speech simply by exercising their right to freely associate. And when people group together—be it on the steps of a courthouse, in the form of a trade union or as a corporation—they don’t lose their freedom to speak out.
Occupy the Courts protesters also mistakenly believed that the Citizens United ruling held that “money is speech.” In fact, the Court never said that. Rather, it ruled correctly that money facilitates speech. And if the government has the power to control how much money you can spend speaking, then it effectively can control your speech.
Importantly, the law in question in the Citizens United case empowered the government to fine and even imprison ordinary people for engaging in certain types of speech. The government argued in court that it had the power to ban videos and books. I don’t believe that many Americans, including the Occupy the Courts protesters, think the government should be in the business of banning books.
Opponents of Citizens United seem particularly upset about the rise of Super PACs—a term used frequently this campaign season, often accompanied with a warning about their dangers. But the Citizens United ruling only indirectly affected the creation of Super PACs.
Further, Super PACs actually help to level the playing field.
Before Super PACs, wealthy people could spend as much as they wanted voicing their opinions in campaigns. For instance, Bill Gates could spend $1 billion on political ads, but if two people of more modest means decided to pool their money together to speak out, they would be limited to spending just $10,000 total.
In a case called SpeechNow.org v FEC, litigated by the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics, the government ruled that the $10,000 limit was unconstitutional, giving rise to Super PACs. That is, Super PACs simply allow ordinary Americans to do what wealthy people have been allowed to do for decades.
And while Super PACs may help people to speak more effectively this election season, ultimately it will be voters who decide which candidates to support. As Paul Sherman makes clear:
The real question raised by Super PACs is, are voters going to be allowed to decide for themselves which messages they want to consider before they cast their ballot, or is the government going to decide that for them?
Citizens United correctly recognized that the First Amendment protects the right of voters to think for themselves. Moreover, by taking censorship of political speech off the table, Citizens United allows us to focus on the real problem with the political process:
It’s not that there’s too much money in politics, but that politicians control too much money. As long as government is in the business of spending trillions of dollars and influencing countless aspects of the economy and our lives, special interests will inevitably be drawn towards them.
The only solution, then, is to shrink government.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
37 Comments
As far as liberals are concerned free speech is only good for people who think just like they do.
They don't have any tolerance for the people who disagree with them.
"The irony of those protests is that you had groups of people getting together to speak out against a Supreme Court decision that protected the right of people to get together and speak out."
Excellent analysis. The home of fascism today is the American Left.
We see the totalitarian impulse with them again and again.
This is the equivalent of a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum!
You had your day in court and LOST!
BUILD A BRIDGE AND GET OVER IT!
Friggin crybabies.
If fetuses are not people, how can a corporation be a people?
SARC/OFF
So easy to confuse liberals…..just present facts and their eyes glaze-over driving them into a platitudinal rant of progessive talking points.
What do you expect from the Cousin Eddie generation, you know, “holding out for a management position,” …aka OWS/OTC. Ignorance of facts and reality are a convenient truth for all leftist, remember, “ ignorance is bliss.” Just do what you’re told, all you useful idiots, and your masters in government will feed, and keep you.
Keep up the fight for real America through Citizens United – - establishment Washington is shaking in their government issued booties…good.
Seems the face of Occupy the Courts is sponsored by Occupy Wall Street, Dr. Cornel West, and KBOO Community Radio. It would be interesting to know the source of their financial support. The OWS crowd was supported by dim party, communist party, Hamas, soros, and a variety of unions. Cornel West is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Go figure. KBOO Community Radio broadcasts from Portland, Oregon: "Alternative Radio, A weekly one-hour progressive radio show featurin[g] lectures and interviews with progressive thinkers."
Their sponsor list follows
http://kboo.fm/underwriters
It is interesting to note that the Teamsters seem to be one of the proud sponsors.
Leftists don't like free speech. Free speech means you can disagree with a leftist, and that is the most evil thing in the world to leftists.
On a different note,…….
Has anyone heard about this "hi-tech" battery company,…….
that received over 100 million of our tax dollars and,…….
like Solyndra, has just gone belly up.
the Left also loves to conveniently ignore the massive role unions are allowed to play in our elections, but hey, some groups of people are more equal than others, right?
A claim of first amendment rights from the left are no more than scoundrels attempting to deny those same rights to people with whom they disagree.
""" In fact, the Court never said that. Rather, it ruled correctly that money facilitates speech. And if the government has the power to control how much money you can spend speaking, then it effectively can control your speech.""""
EXACTLY, IDIOT.
Thats the problem. unlimited cash flooding into campaigns means that only the super rich and corporations decide who are reps are.. and judges now too.
I don't know why cons love corporately owned government.
I've seen a few conservatives on this board saying they want another maccarthy era where suspected commies are hunted down by the government.
Now we're talking freedom.
The courts decision protected the right of corporations to own the people's government.
What is it that you cons have against government of and for the people?
Instead you like government of and for the wealthiest interests
What is it that you cons have against government of and for the people?
Instead you like government of and for the wealthiest interests
OWS doesn't like corporate control of the people's government and judicial branch
For some reason you cons love it.
The word "Few" is the right choice, thanks for NOT strereo-typing the group.
Reread this:
"In a case called SpeechNow.org v FEC, litigated by the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics, the government ruled that the $10,000 limit was unconstitutional, giving rise to Super PACs. That is, Super PACs simply allow ordinary Americans to do what wealthy people have been allowed to do for decades."
""Super PACs simply allow ordinary Americans to do what wealthy people have been allowed to do for decades.""""
Wow, who would've known. ordinary americans are putting their rainy day millions into super pacs.
Thanks Team Parasite, always instructive. Now get back into bed, clutch your Barry action figures tightly, suck your thumb, and dream of a high seat on the politburo.
Thats the problem. unlimited cash flooding into campaigns means that only the UNIONS decide who are reps are.. and judges now too.
I don't know why leftards love UNION-owned government.
Of course you play the union card because you've been indoctrinated well.
This isn't a union vs corporation issue, it's an everything issue. I wouldn't want money from either group.
and you Leftists don't like the peoples' control of the government, you prefer Judges who legislate from the bench.
no, genius, it allows thousands of regular Americans to get together and pool their money so that they can make a real difference. $1,000 from one person won't buy a whole lot of TV ads, but $1,000 a piece from 1,000 people will.
try to pay attention and be any more dense than you have to be.
fine, then vote for candidates that will promote public financing of campaigns. this is what you and the OWS boneheads haven't figured out yet; if you don't like something about our system, you can vote to change it. the only place you need to "occupy" is a voting booth.
judges are a branch of government genius.
they teach that one in the 3rd grade.
yep thats how it works
No corporate money at all
your ignorance is adorable
Not with the onslaught of hundred million dollar ad campaigns for the candidates that play ball paid for by the corps that own them. And then the corporate media dictates who we will see and not see.
Because we have a lot ignorant people in this country, fox viewers and such, the ads work and they swallow whatever the media tells them.
Seems the toddler has his own super pac. What say you now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/prioriti...
Not to rain on your parade but the Occupy the Court is supported by the Teamsters, OWS(backed by dims, communist party, soros, Hamas, various unions, Dr. Cornel West(DSA), and KBOO Community Radio out of Portland Oregon.
Hey Oldman
For your comment to have ANY relevance you'd have to find where I said that Obama is totally pure of corporate influence. Or where I said that corporate spending is a problem with only one party.
Can you?
Didn't think so
Unlike you I'm not a hopeless partisan.
I, like many others, realize that Obama is just another politician, no better then bush or clinton. So while you're busy calling him a commie, he's busy taking money from corps and banks like everybody else… you know how those corps and banks Loooooove communism, right?
No worries, you couldn't rain on my parade with these talking points.
I know in the conservative world everything is black and white.
But you can be against court decisions, corporate influence in our elections and NOT be a communist.
SHOCKING, I know.
But somehow you have not been able to avoid being the fool. lol
Zing
Hey, I asked you a question on another thread.
I'll await your answer.
I am not here to answer your questions. If you were not so obstinate you would see that I have already expressed my views which have answered your questions. Your simply trolling for something else to argue about.
HAAHAHAA
I was so right.
All I did was ask you to back up ANYTHING you said and you couldn't do it
YOU LOSE.
EVERYBODY LOOK AT MKRECH
sad little man who just got destroyed.
can't even back up the bull sht things he says.
Now runaway little man.
I'm done with you.
I don't waste my time with people who can't back up their own retarded statements.
That explains your ego issues.
Sure, just next time you say ridiculous things just try to at least kinda back them up.
You must be logged in to post a comment.