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.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?