FrankRep
09-10-2009, 01:40 PM
Supreme Court Considers Freedom of Speech (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5337-supreme-court-considers-freedom-of-speech)
Alex Newman | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
10 September 2009
The United States Supreme Court reconvened on September 9 in a rare special session to hear more arguments regarding restrictions on the right to freedom of speech imposed by the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. A decision to overturn all or even some of the rules could have far reaching implications, and analysts say it might just happen.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case was originally brought before the high court in March by a non-profit organization trying to air a film it had produced called "Hillary: The Movie." The documentary would have exposed negative information about Hillary Clinton while she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Under the guise of enforcing a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that purports to ban express advocacy of federal candidates before elections, in January of 2008 the FEC barred the movie and associated advertisements from being shown during the election cycle. Critics of the decision and the regulations in general call it blatant government censorship and tyranny, while supporters contend that the restrictions are necessary to keep “evil” corporations from affecting elections.
"It has created an unworkable campaign finance framework that chills fundamental First Amendment freedoms, punishes core political speech with felony prosecution, and continues to generate lengthy, piecemeal litigation,” explained Citizens United’s representative and former solicitor general Theodore Olson, who is now leading the campaign to overturn the law he once defended under the Bush administration. “It must fall."
Instead of issuing a ruling in March, the Supreme Court heard arguments and eventually asked the parties to answer some more questions — like why the past decisions on the issue should not be overturned. So the lawyers returned on Wednesday with the answers. In his brief to the court, Olson pointed to past claims made by Obama administration lawyer Malcolm Stewart in relation to the case. He told the court that the law gave government the ability to prohibit books and even e-books.
"Enough is enough,” wrote Olson. “When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong and it is as sure a sign as any that a return to first principles is in order." Joining him in defending free speech was renowned First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams.
The president of Citizens United, David Bossie, also argued that law is unconstitutional and must be overturned. "McCain-Feingold made it a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison to broadcast our movie or advertising promoting sales of the movie during the 2008 election cycle solely because of their political content."
Speculation is running rampant about what decision the court may reach. It could overrule two earlier decisions; one from 1990 that upheld political spending restrictions on corporations at the state level and another in 2003 that kept most of the McCain-Feingold law intact. Some observers think the court could overturn campaign finance restrictions dating as far back as the early 1900s.
According to analysts, the fact that the court asked for more arguments and is even holding the special session is a clear sign that it may be willing to lift the bans on political speech, and maybe even go further. Three of the current justices have already indicated that they support scrapping the restrictions, and two others have “questioned the validity of campaign finance laws,” according to the Associated Press.
This will be Justice Sotomayor’s first case on the Supreme Court, though she is not expected to play a crucial role in the decision. The final ruling is anticipated late this year or early next year.
Arguing the government’s position — that the restrictions and precedents should be kept in place — is solicitor general Elena Kagan, who will present her arguments before the Supreme Court for the first time. Representing senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, who authored and sponsored the main restrictions in question, is former solicitor general Seth Waxman.
Kagan argued that the government must uphold the regulations and their foundations to prevent corruption of government officials. Waxman said that the precedents upon which McCain-Feingold were predicated are "vital cornerstones" and that reversing them would be "unseemly." He claimed that ruling in favor of the first amendment would "threaten the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the nation."
But contrary to Waxman’s assertions, striking down unconstitutional limitations on the right to freedom of speech would be a welcome development. Even many liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union are backing Citizens United. The AFL-CIO, moreover, said past court decisions on the issues have created an “unworkable censorship regime.”
The government’s argument was that since Citizens United is technically a corporation, and it received some money from corporations (though most of the donations for the Clinton film came from individuals), it is subject to the draconian restrictions. Of course, the rules would include just about all messages, since individuals rarely have the ability to finance such efforts individually and must therefore band together in a voluntary association.
The notion that people and organizations must beg for government permission to express their opinion or support candidates is simply un-American. It stifles much-needed debate and can also prevent the electorate from uncovering important information about potential public servants. It also violates the contract with the people that gave the government legitimacy in the first place.
Perhaps “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” was not clear enough, but that is unlikely. The court should enforce the Constitution and the First Amendment by overturning its past decisions and any unconstitutional restrictions on campaign-finance or political speech.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5337-supreme-court-considers-freedom-of-speech
Alex Newman | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
10 September 2009
The United States Supreme Court reconvened on September 9 in a rare special session to hear more arguments regarding restrictions on the right to freedom of speech imposed by the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. A decision to overturn all or even some of the rules could have far reaching implications, and analysts say it might just happen.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case was originally brought before the high court in March by a non-profit organization trying to air a film it had produced called "Hillary: The Movie." The documentary would have exposed negative information about Hillary Clinton while she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Under the guise of enforcing a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that purports to ban express advocacy of federal candidates before elections, in January of 2008 the FEC barred the movie and associated advertisements from being shown during the election cycle. Critics of the decision and the regulations in general call it blatant government censorship and tyranny, while supporters contend that the restrictions are necessary to keep “evil” corporations from affecting elections.
"It has created an unworkable campaign finance framework that chills fundamental First Amendment freedoms, punishes core political speech with felony prosecution, and continues to generate lengthy, piecemeal litigation,” explained Citizens United’s representative and former solicitor general Theodore Olson, who is now leading the campaign to overturn the law he once defended under the Bush administration. “It must fall."
Instead of issuing a ruling in March, the Supreme Court heard arguments and eventually asked the parties to answer some more questions — like why the past decisions on the issue should not be overturned. So the lawyers returned on Wednesday with the answers. In his brief to the court, Olson pointed to past claims made by Obama administration lawyer Malcolm Stewart in relation to the case. He told the court that the law gave government the ability to prohibit books and even e-books.
"Enough is enough,” wrote Olson. “When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong and it is as sure a sign as any that a return to first principles is in order." Joining him in defending free speech was renowned First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams.
The president of Citizens United, David Bossie, also argued that law is unconstitutional and must be overturned. "McCain-Feingold made it a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison to broadcast our movie or advertising promoting sales of the movie during the 2008 election cycle solely because of their political content."
Speculation is running rampant about what decision the court may reach. It could overrule two earlier decisions; one from 1990 that upheld political spending restrictions on corporations at the state level and another in 2003 that kept most of the McCain-Feingold law intact. Some observers think the court could overturn campaign finance restrictions dating as far back as the early 1900s.
According to analysts, the fact that the court asked for more arguments and is even holding the special session is a clear sign that it may be willing to lift the bans on political speech, and maybe even go further. Three of the current justices have already indicated that they support scrapping the restrictions, and two others have “questioned the validity of campaign finance laws,” according to the Associated Press.
This will be Justice Sotomayor’s first case on the Supreme Court, though she is not expected to play a crucial role in the decision. The final ruling is anticipated late this year or early next year.
Arguing the government’s position — that the restrictions and precedents should be kept in place — is solicitor general Elena Kagan, who will present her arguments before the Supreme Court for the first time. Representing senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, who authored and sponsored the main restrictions in question, is former solicitor general Seth Waxman.
Kagan argued that the government must uphold the regulations and their foundations to prevent corruption of government officials. Waxman said that the precedents upon which McCain-Feingold were predicated are "vital cornerstones" and that reversing them would be "unseemly." He claimed that ruling in favor of the first amendment would "threaten the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the nation."
But contrary to Waxman’s assertions, striking down unconstitutional limitations on the right to freedom of speech would be a welcome development. Even many liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union are backing Citizens United. The AFL-CIO, moreover, said past court decisions on the issues have created an “unworkable censorship regime.”
The government’s argument was that since Citizens United is technically a corporation, and it received some money from corporations (though most of the donations for the Clinton film came from individuals), it is subject to the draconian restrictions. Of course, the rules would include just about all messages, since individuals rarely have the ability to finance such efforts individually and must therefore band together in a voluntary association.
The notion that people and organizations must beg for government permission to express their opinion or support candidates is simply un-American. It stifles much-needed debate and can also prevent the electorate from uncovering important information about potential public servants. It also violates the contract with the people that gave the government legitimacy in the first place.
Perhaps “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” was not clear enough, but that is unlikely. The court should enforce the Constitution and the First Amendment by overturning its past decisions and any unconstitutional restrictions on campaign-finance or political speech.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5337-supreme-court-considers-freedom-of-speech