Citizens United Huge Step Forward for Free Speech

On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court empowered ordinary Americans to speak out on an equal footing with millionaires and the media in U.S. elections. Threatened by people being able to freely speak their minds, the president of the United States deceived the American people when discussing this court decision in the State of the Union.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court held that Americans acting together through a corporation or other type of group enjoy the same free speech rights that they enjoy individually. Noting that wealthy individuals can spend unlimited money on election ads for radio and television, the Court held that ordinary individuals could likewise pool their money together to engage in the same type of speech, striking down a federal law that made such corporate action a felony.

Writing the majority opinion, moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that in our free country, the First Amendment provides that, “more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” The Court wrote that this case involved a domestic corporation, funded and run by U.S. citizens, seeking to distribute a documentary on a presidential candidate to inform voters’ choices. The Court noted that the Constitution allows combating corruption, but that no one alleged any corruption or quid pro quo here, and so all this amounted to was people joining together in an organization to express their views during the election.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: campaign finance, Congress, Free Speech, Obama, Supreme Court
Posted Jan 29th 2010 at 1:33 pm in Congress, Justice/Legal, News, Obama, Politics | 67162172 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/kenandken/2010/01/29/citizens-united-huge-step-forward-for-free-speech/Citizens+United+Huge+Step+Forward+for+Free+Speech2010-01-29+21%3A33%3A27Ken+Blackwell+and++Ken+Klukowski

Understanding Liberal Rage Over Citizens United

On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal issue.  First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to power.  Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision.  So why are prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?

It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred for all things corporate.  But is that enough to overcome what otherwise seems like a tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on corporate speech] is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the corporate gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by those of the unions and other liberal issue groups that benefit from the ruling just the same.  The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their opposition isn’t political in nature.  Neither is it based on the merits. Rather, it is philosophical.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: ACLU, Barack Obama, campaign finance, Citizens United, Free Speech
Posted Jan 23rd 2010 at 1:07 pm in Culture, Justice/Legal, Politics | 64194224 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/bgarst/2010/01/23/understanding-liberal-rage-over-citizens-united/Understanding+Liberal+Rage+Over+Citizens+United2010-01-23+21%3A07%3A54Brian+Garst

A Resounding Defense of the First Amendment: ‘Congress Shall Make No Law’

Thursday, in his resounding defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

…[w]hen Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

“Censorship” is a dirty word in America, and that is why the restrictions at issue in our case were cloaked in the guise of “campaign finance reform.”  But the fact remains that any restrictions on political speech, especially those that criminalize such speech, send us down a very slippery and very dangerous slope.

Last March, our government argued in court that it has the Constitutional authority to ban books that mention a candidate for federal office.  The government later retracted that statement, but is there any doubt that such a statement never would have been made if there had not been 100 years of progressively more intrusive restrictions on political speech preceding it?    Had the Court not acted, what was to prevent the government from asserting that authority over the internet, which does not have the benefit of two centuries of tradition and jurisprudence protecting it?

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Anthony Kennedy, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, book-banning, Bossie, campaign finance reform
Posted Jan 23rd 2010 at 7:42 am in Featured Story, Justice/Legal, Politics | 64354103 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/dbossie/2010/01/23/a-resounding-defense-of-the-first-amendment-congress-shall-make-no-law/A+Resounding+Defense+of+the+First+Amendment%3A+%27Congress+Shall+Make+No+Law%272010-01-23+15%3A42%3A10David+Bossie

Citizens United vs. FEC – Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights

**Link Fixed**

Today the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.  This long overdue decision is a victory not only for Citizens United but also for the First Amendment.  The majority opinion clearly and decisively explained that “[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

The case decided this morning revolves around the 2007 film Hillary the Movie.  The film, which took an in-depth and critical look at the career of Hillary Clinton, was set to appear on cable television via video on demand during the Democratic presidential primary season in 2008.  The broadcast was prohibited by the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, because Citizens United was organized as a corporation and had accepted a small amount of contributions from corporations to finance the film.

The government walks down a very treacherous path when it attempts to regulate speech, whether on film, print, or television.  Previous case law including Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell vs. FEC had created a regulatory scheme so complex one dare not speak without consulting a lawyer.  Even then, one should only consult an election lawyer with years of experience because the rules are so complex and precise.  As a lawyer you’d think I’d welcome the business, but not at the expense of the First Amendment. (more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: campaign expenditure limits, campaign finance laws, campaign finance restrictions, campaign speech, Citizens United
Posted Jan 21st 2010 at 6:47 pm in Congress, Justice/Legal, News, Politics | 63630101 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/cberg/2010/01/21/citizens-united-vs-fec-supreme-court-protects-first-amendment-rights/Citizens+United+vs.+FEC+%E2%80%93+Supreme+Court+Protects+First+Amendment+Rights2010-01-22+02%3A47%3A36Chris+++Berg

The Future of Campaign-Finance Laws: Citizens United is Just the Latest Battle in a Long-Running War

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United—holding that the government may not use campaign finance laws to silence the political speech of corporations—is the most significant First Amendment decision of the past decade.  In holding that “the First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves,” the Court made it clear that the Constitution “entrust[s] the people to judge what is true and what is false.”  Freedom of speech means that everyone, including corporations, has the right to participate in the “open marketplace of ideas” that is “an essential mechanism of democracy.”

But while Citizens United marks a major victory for First Amendment rights against expansive campaign finance regulation, the war rages on.  Politicians worked to silence corporations because they have the resources to speak effectively.  Politicians feared if this speech criticized them, it could threaten the one thing they care about most:  re-election.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: campaign finance, campaign speech, campaign spending limits, Citizens United, David Bossie
Posted Jan 21st 2010 at 11:29 am in Featured Story, Justice/Legal, News, Politics | 6359487 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/rfrommer/2010/01/21/the-future-of-campaign-finance-laws-citizens-united-is-just-the-latest-battle-in-a-long-running-war/The+Future+of+Campaign-Finance+Laws%3A+Citizens+United+is+Just+the+Latest+Battle+in+a+Long-Running+War2010-01-21+19%3A29%3A03Robert+Frommer

Net Neutrality Supporters Have First Amendment Upside Down

With the onset of the holiday season, Washington, D.C., is getting quieter by the day.  However, opponents of net neutrality—which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering implementing—are not taking a break from tough policy debate quite yet.  With the FCC expected to reach a decision on net neutrality early next year, one major foe of the policy spoke out against it again last week in harsh terms, suggesting that if net neutrality rules were implemented, they might fall afoul of the First Amendment’s intent and purpose.

Kyle McSlarrow, President of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said at a lunch held last Wednesday by the Media Institute that the implementation of net neutrality rules “would ultimately decrease the overall amount of speech on the Internet, thus harming, not helping, First Amendment interests.”  Furthermore, he argued, net neutrality proponents who claim the policy is needed to protect First Amendment rights have their facts “upside down.”  McSlarrow went on to add, “By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government.  Making these arguments is, ironically, almost proof that First Amendment rights are being implicated…let’s not forget that the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government.”

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: constitutional rights, First Amendment, first amendment rights, Free Speech, Kyle McSlarrow
Posted Dec 15th 2009 at 2:07 pm in Justice/Legal, Technology, Uncategorized | 4627843 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2009/12/15/net-neutrality-supporters-have-first-amendment-upside-down/Net+Neutrality+Supporters+Have+First+Amendment+Upside+Down2009-12-15+22%3A07%3A53Capitol++Confidential

Congressman Presses Clinton on Savage’s Behalf: UK Should Lift Travel Ban

The British government has banned Radio talk show host Michael Savage from traveling to the United Kingdom. The UK government placed Savage’s name on a list of prohibited individuals that is generally reserved for murderers, other serious criminals and terrorists. Today, Congressman John Culberson (R-TX) sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging her to press her counterparts in the UK to remove Mr. Savage’s name from list of banned individuals. Full test of the letter below:

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: British Home Secretary, Free Speech, Hillary Clinton, John Culberson, Michael Savage
Posted Nov 17th 2009 at 1:58 pm in Culture, News, Politics | 3249836 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2009/11/17/congressman-presses-clinton-on-savages-behalf-uk-should-lift-travel-ban/Congressman+Presses+Clinton+on+Savage%27s+Behalf%3A+UK+Should+Lift+Travel+Ban2009-11-17+20%3A58%3A12Capitol++Confidential

Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?

The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent; that it is acceptable for countries to preemptively regulate the Internet for what might happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.

The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, commercial free speech, competitive internet, equal protection
Posted Nov 17th 2009 at 9:37 am in Uncategorized | 3233831 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/scleland/2009/11/17/is-fcc-declaring-open-season-on-internet-freedom/Is+FCC+Declaring+%E2%80%98Open+Season%E2%80%99+on+Internet+Freedom%3F2009-11-17+16%3A37%3A59Scott+Cleland

Happy 234th Birthday to the Marines

Earlier this year as I was filling up at the gas station I noticed a faded bumper sticker- vintage Bush 43-on the car next to me: “Dissent is Patriotic.” When I pointed to the bumper and asked the driver if she still believed that, she suggested I do something to myself which I am certain is physically impossible. I just laughed and said, “I’ll take that as a no.”

At the time, our Marine son and his men were deployed to a remote Forward Operating Base in Afghanistan. As I reflected on my experience at the Shell station, I wondered if this woman had any idea the sacrifices so many had made so she could exercise her 1^stAmendment rights during the previous administration or this one.

I wondered if she knew about Belleau Wood, the Chosin Reservoir, Hue City, Fallujah, or the Helmand Province? Was she aware that at Tarawa, 1,020 Marines were killed in the seventy-six hour battle? She may have seen the photo but did she know at Iwo Jima, the thirty-six day assault left more than 26,000 Americans wounded and 6,800 Marines dead?  Did she have any clue as to the sacrifices others have made throughout this nation’s history so she could live free?

My wife and I recently spent a week on the Marine Corps base where our son is stationed. As we walked up and down the residential street where he and his family live we realized almost half of the homes had husbands deployed to a combat zone. The other half had spouses who recently returned or were about to leave. It was humbling to see parking lots with so many cars displaying Purple Heart license plates or seeing the injured frequenting the PX. Did the woman know about these recent sacrifices?

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Beleau Wood, Chosin Reservoir, dissent, eternal vigilance, Fallujah
Posted Nov 10th 2009 at 3:37 pm in Culture, Defense, Featured Story, History, News | 28618110 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/bhamer/2009/11/10/happy-234th-birthday-to-the-marines/Happy+234th+Birthday+to+the+Marines2009-11-10+22%3A37%3A52Bob+Hamer

That Unhinged Florida Reporter: Act II

On Friday, we brought you the story of the little reporter who could…corner the market on nuttiness in under 5 sentences. As rants go, it was pretty impressive. What it lacked in eloquence or, even, coherance, it made up in pounds of rage per square inch. (Since the reporter so clearly aligns himself with the Democrat party, the rant does beg the question: Dude, why so angry? “Your side” controls everything in Washington and most states by a wide margin. Given the current state of the GOP, they are the least of your worries.)

These days, uncovering the fact that a reporter has a strong leftist political bias is a ‘dog bites man’ story.  What was surprising, though, is that he felt perfectly comfortable expressing his rage through his work e-mail, in response to an elected official’s press release. (He even sent the email in the middle of the afternoon, suggesting that the three-martini lunch is alive and well in the Florida Keys.)

Most editors, one imagines, would typically frown on their journalists displaying such raw partisan anger. The reporter’s boss, Tom Tuell, however, isn’t like most editors…

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: divisive rhetoric, Free Speech, John Guerra, journalism, Keys Citzen
Posted Oct 26th 2009 at 1:12 pm in Culture, Media Criticism, Politics | 20642135 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2009/10/26/that-unhinged-florida-reporter-act-ii/That+Unhinged+Florida+Reporter%3A+Act+II2009-10-26+20%3A12%3A05Mike+Flynn

Hate Crimes Ploy Undermines Free Speech

Over at Examiner, Byron York asks the fairly obvious question:

What does a hate crimes bill have to do with money for U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing, except that the National Defense Authorization Act, which will win final passage in Congress and be sent to the president’s desk this week, also contains the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which Democrats placed inside the defense measure over Republican objections.

The crime bill — which would broaden the protected classes for hate crimes to include sexual orientation and “gender identity,” which the bill defines as a victim’s “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics” — passed the House earlier this year as a stand-alone measure. But it’s never had the votes to succeed by itself in the Senate. So over the summer Democrats, with the power of their 60-vote majority, attached it to the defense bill.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Afghanistan, civil libertarians, defense authorization, Free Speech, gender identity
Posted Oct 13th 2009 at 6:10 am in Congress, Culture, Defense, News, Politics | 1591861 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/publius/2009/10/13/hate-crimes-ploy-undermines-free-speech/Hate+Crimes+Ploy+Undermines+Free+Speech2009-10-13+13%3A10%3A23Publius

WorldNetDaily: Cambridge Cancels Michael Savage Debate

WorldNetDaily reports:

Just one week before Michael Savage was scheduled to debate via video link at the Cambridge Union in England, the co-presidents of the two-century-old society informed the top-rated radio host they have canceled the event.

As WND reported, the invitation from the Cambridge Union Society for the Oct. 15 debate was issued in July after Savage was banned from entering the United Kingdom by Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government along with Muslim extremists and leaders of hate groups.

In an e-mail today to Savage producer Beowulf Rochlen, Cambridge Union leaders Julien Domercq and Jonathan Laurence wrote, “It is with great regret to inform you of the difficult decision we have taken to cancel the event.”

Domercq and Laurence pointed to problems with the cost and feasibility of setting up the necessary video link, but they also cited “legal issues.” (more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Cambridge, Cambridge Union Society, Free Speech, Michael Savage
Posted Oct 7th 2009 at 5:26 pm in News | 1427880 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/publius/2009/10/07/worldnetdaily-cambridge-cancels-michael-savage-debate/WorldNetDaily%3A+Cambridge+Cancels+Michael+Savage+Debate2009-10-08+00%3A26%3A06Publius

Michael Savage to Debate Free Speech at Cambridge Union Oct. 15th

(San Francisco, CA) Michael Savage, ’shock-jock’ author of over 25 books with a radio audience of 10 million listeners who was banned from entering the United Kingdom in May by Gordon Brown will argue against the insanity of ‘political correctness’ on Thursday, October 15 at 8:00pm GMT. Savage will appear via internet link to argue his case for freedom of speech.

Quoting Winston Churchill, who said, “You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! -of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic…” Savage will attempt to ’save England from a descent into mental slavery where petty bureaucrats dictate what can and cannot be discussed.” (more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Cambridge, Churchill, debate, England, Free Speech
Posted Oct 6th 2009 at 5:01 pm in Politics | 1377061 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/publius/2009/10/06/michael-savage-to-debate-free-speech-at-cambridge-union-oct-15th/Michael+Savage+to+Debate+Free+Speech+at+Cambridge+Union+Oct.+15th2009-10-07+00%3A01%3A21Publius