The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution
As previously noted, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in the case entitled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that Congress’ complete restriction of speech by corporations violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment, as we all know, states in pertinent part that: ”Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press… “.
Note that the First Amendment has no qualifying statements regarding the protection of the freedom of speech. If the framers had so desired they could have limited the free speech guarantee to natural persons. They did not do so. This is so in part because the framers did not want our government to find ways to censure free speech.
While corporations are not natural persons, they are associations comprised of natural persons. The Courts opinion did not to say that Congress could never distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other business entities, or even foreign citizens or business organizations. The Supreme Court was careful to say that its opinion was limited to the absolute ban on corporate speech, and did not apply to limitations against speech by foreign nationals. This is why we saw Justice Samuel Alito mouth “not true” to President Obama’s sweeping rhetoric that the Court’s opinion would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” That statement is simply not true. The Supreme Court has consistently stated that the freedom of speech is not absolute, and that some restrictions are constitutional if those restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. It said so again in Citizens United.
After a few weeks of hand-wringing by Democrats who have been making the same sweeping allegations as did the President, we now see poll results of whether persons agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling. The Washington Post states:
Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.
The poll actually asked the two following questions:
Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?
Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns?
I can understand why the respondents answered the way they did. The questions are biased, because they assume the Court removed all restrictions or limits on corporate political activity. If the Court had done so, I would have agreed with the questions, and the overwhelming responses given by those polled. But that’s not what the Court said. It said that an absolute ban on corporate speech was unconstitutional. There are no statements in the Court’s opinion that a rational legal scholar would say allows for “unfettered corporate spending.” In addition, the qualifications in both questions (i.e. ”to help political candidates win elections” and “on election campaigns” imply that the Court authorized spending either in coordination with, or directly to, candidates. The Court’s opinion was limited to independent expenditures that were neither coordinated nor made directly to candidates.
The poll biases aside, John Samples writes on the CATO blog that Americans are often at odds with the Constitution. Samples notes that while in the abstract, Americans overwhelmingly support the bill of rights and freedoms guaranteed therein, sizable portions of Americans — in some cases the majority thereof — oppose certain specific constitutionally protected acts of freedom. Those acts could include banning all private ownership of firearms or preventing public school students from wearing shirts that might offend others.
The genius of the Constitution was that it was written to protect minority rights and governmental participation, and not just what the majority might believe. Without the Bill of Rights which guarantees our rights regarding speech, religion, assembly, property ownership, arms ownership, and others, Congress would have the, shall we say, unfettered ability to pass laws desired by the majority that restrict those rights we hold to be so fundamental.
