Campaigning on a Budget
The Supreme Court struck down Monday a Vermont law that would severely restrict campaign spending within the state. (State senator candidates, for instance, would not be permitted to spend more than $4,000 on their entire campaign.)
The decision was, of course, predictably praised by Right-leaning OpEd pages, including The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, who called the decision a “Free Speech Victory” and “A Victory for the First.”
It doesn’t take a strict constructionist to see that such a violent act of judicial review resembles an act of legislating from the bench. After all, states’ rights suffer in the wake of this decision. Worse, these OpEd pages don’t appear to mind judicial activism when their agenda benefits. To review the First Amendment:
That’s “Congress” with a capital “C.” If the grounds for nullifying the state law rested on the First Amendment, it would be a stretch to assert that a Vermont law was an instance of the U.S. Congress abridging the freedom of speech. It turns out that the victory was for the Fourteenth Amendment, which includes this section:
The First Amendment gets all the attention, but this Fourteenth is the one to watch these days. It is this Amendment which has been co-opted to grant protection to corporations as legal “persons,” and it is this Amendment which improperly has been used to violate, at opportune times, the rights and sovereignty of individual states and shore up federalist advances. Interestingly, the Fourteenth Amendment ends with these words:
Strange, then, that the Supreme Court has assumed that power, with scant legislative backing from elected representatives.
Of course, another question lingers: “Does spending money really count as speech?” The answer is obviously “no” until one looks at reality. In today's civic world it is difficult to find venues where you can speak before a public audience (or reach them through other media) for free (the Internet is a cause for hope). With that anxiety, it is difficult to imagine a grassroots campaign effectively ousting a well-known incumbant with a scant few thousand dollars to spend. At the same time, the money-as-speech view would concludes that fundraising skills are as important as a candidate's ability to communicate with a constituency. Should it be any wonder then that our halls of government are filled with men and women with money always on their minds?
The decision was, of course, predictably praised by Right-leaning OpEd pages, including The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, who called the decision a “Free Speech Victory” and “A Victory for the First.”
It doesn’t take a strict constructionist to see that such a violent act of judicial review resembles an act of legislating from the bench. After all, states’ rights suffer in the wake of this decision. Worse, these OpEd pages don’t appear to mind judicial activism when their agenda benefits. To review the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…
That’s “Congress” with a capital “C.” If the grounds for nullifying the state law rested on the First Amendment, it would be a stretch to assert that a Vermont law was an instance of the U.S. Congress abridging the freedom of speech. It turns out that the victory was for the Fourteenth Amendment, which includes this section:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The First Amendment gets all the attention, but this Fourteenth is the one to watch these days. It is this Amendment which has been co-opted to grant protection to corporations as legal “persons,” and it is this Amendment which improperly has been used to violate, at opportune times, the rights and sovereignty of individual states and shore up federalist advances. Interestingly, the Fourteenth Amendment ends with these words:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Strange, then, that the Supreme Court has assumed that power, with scant legislative backing from elected representatives.
Of course, another question lingers: “Does spending money really count as speech?” The answer is obviously “no” until one looks at reality. In today's civic world it is difficult to find venues where you can speak before a public audience (or reach them through other media) for free (the Internet is a cause for hope). With that anxiety, it is difficult to imagine a grassroots campaign effectively ousting a well-known incumbant with a scant few thousand dollars to spend. At the same time, the money-as-speech view would concludes that fundraising skills are as important as a candidate's ability to communicate with a constituency. Should it be any wonder then that our halls of government are filled with men and women with money always on their minds?
posted by danielklotz at 3:53 PM
1 Comments:
Dude, check out my new political blog, at jesus-land.blogspot.com. We'll talk soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home