{"id":14937,"date":"2012-05-06T10:32:19","date_gmt":"2012-05-06T15:32:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=14937"},"modified":"2012-05-06T10:32:19","modified_gmt":"2012-05-06T15:32:19","slug":"the-free-speech-baby-with-the-citizens-united-bathwater","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2012\/05\/06\/the-free-speech-baby-with-the-citizens-united-bathwater\/","title":{"rendered":"The free speech baby with the Citizens United bathwater"},"content":{"rendered":"

George Will<\/a> on the rather impressive sweep of a new proposal to circumvent the US Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Now comes Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., with a comparable contribution to another debate, the one concerning government regulation of political speech. Joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 26 other Democrats and one Republican, he proposes a constitutional amendment to radically contract First Amendment protections. His purpose is to vastly expand government\u2019s power \u2014 i.e., the power of incumbent legislators \u2014 to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government. McGovern\u2019s proposal vindicates those who say most campaign-finance \u201creforms\u201d are incompatible with the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

His \u201cPeople\u2019s Rights Amendment\u201d declares that the Constitution protects only the rights of \u201cnatural persons,\u201d not such persons organized in corporations, and that Congress can impose on corporations whatever restrictions Congress deems \u201creasonable.\u201d His amendment says it shall not be construed \u201cto limit the people\u2019s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.\u201d But the amendment is explicitly designed to deny such rights to natural persons who, exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of association, come together in corporate entities to speak in concert.<\/p>\n

McGovern stresses that his amendment decrees that \u201call corporate entities \u2014 for-profit and nonprofit alike\u201d have no constitutional rights. So Congress \u2014 and state legislatures and local governments \u2014 could regulate to the point of proscription political speech, or any other speech, by the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, NARAL Pro-Choice America, or any of the other tens of thousands of nonprofit corporate advocacy groups, including political parties and campaign committees<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations \u2014 and most religious institutions \u2014 are corporate entities. McGovern\u2019s amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights. By doing so, the amendment would empower the government to do much more than proscribe speech. Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy<\/em> blog, notes that government, unleashed by McGovern\u2019s amendment, could regulate religious practices at most houses of worship, conduct whatever searches it wants, reasonable or not, of corporate entities, and seize corporate-owned property for whatever it deems public uses \u2014 without paying compensation. Yes, McGovern\u2019s scythe would mow down the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as the First.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

George Will on the rather impressive sweep of a new proposal to circumvent the US Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United: Now comes Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., with a comparable contribution to another debate, the one concerning government regulation of political speech. Joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 26 other Democrats and one Republican, he […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[84,9,10,28,13],"tags":[715,409,186,213,217,752,101],"class_list":["post-14937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-government","category-law","category-liberty","category-media","category-usa","tag-constitution","tag-corporations","tag-freedomofspeech","tag-newspapers","tag-rights","tag-supremecourt","tag-tv"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-3SV","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14937"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14937\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14938,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14937\/revisions\/14938"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}