Glenden BrownIs Spending Money Free Speech?
The US Supreme has held that spending money to win public office is a form of freedom of speech and is therefore constitutionally protected. Under decisions rendered by the court since the 1970s, US law has held that there should be and can be no limits on the amount of money a campaign/candidate can spend. The court has held that it is constitutional to limit individual’s contributions to campaigns. Thus, a wealthy candidate can literally bankrupt him/her self in pursuit of elected office. (I believe Arianna Huffington’s ex-husband spent nearly $60 million of his personal fortune in pursuit of a US Senate seat.) By contrast, I cannot bankrupt myself donating to a candidate.
The Court’s argument is simply that a candidate has the right to make the public aware of their positions on a variety of issues and that spending to purchase ads, flyers and so forth is part of campaigning. The Court has held that the government may not limit the money campaigns spend.
Under our current system there are no limits on the amount of money an individual or corporation can donate to a Political Action Committee and few limits on the money PACs can donate to parties and candidates. PACs are also marginally accountable to donors and voters. A PAC can (and they often do) run dishonest and misleading ads during campaigns with little mechanism for holding them accountable (i.e. the Swift Boating of John Kerry). PACs are often tied to one industry and use their contributions to influence elected officials.
I am troubled by the idea that spending money is the same thing as free speech - it implies that one’s ability to speak one’s mind is tied to one’s ability to spend money freely. It empowers those with wealth to drown out the voices of those without wealth. Â
As a matter of public policy I am unwilling to limit freedom of speech. I think it is a terrible idea.
Flag burning is defined as a form of free speech and is constitutionally protected which is why we periodically hear borin’ Orrin Hatch suggest we need a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning. (Next time the topic comes up, think about the term “desecrate” which is usually used as in “they’re desecrating the flag.” Desecration is violating the sanctity of something and things which are sanctified are set apart for holy, or religious purposes. Opponents of flag burning are in fact telling us the US flag is a holy icon.) Freedom of speech protects the right to say unpopular, outrageous and uncivil things.
Freedom of speech is under constant attack from people who seem to believe that they have a right to never hear anything offensive or contrary to their views. The whole hoopla around Michael Moore’s visit to UVSC was about censoring views that the good citizens of Utah County deemed offensive and contrary to their views. (Read Free Speech 101 for an insider’s view of that whole event; some of Utah county’s leading citizens come across as patronizing and narrow minded.)
My default position on issues of freedom of speech is to draw the boundaries more widely than more narrowly. So, my basic logic of the issue suggests to me that I should agree that spending money is a form of free speech.
Which is why I favor publicly funding campaigns to provide the rest of us with the tools to confront the monopoly corporations and wealthy individuals have on purchasing the airwaves, ads, media and so forth. The internet has put the power of public discussion in the hands of millions of Americans. It may not fit the Wise Old Men of Washington’s idea of “civility” but it sure as heck fits the definition of democracy in which the average people freely and actively debate the many issues of the day. A system of campaign financing that levels the playing, that reduces barriers to entry, that allows the many to actively take part in the system, not just the wealthy and powerful few is a good idea.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I’m not comfortable with rich people getting a bigger voice than everyone else… but I’m more uncomfortable with telling a rich person they can’t donate millions of dollars to a candidate if they so choose. After all, it’s their money. I think donating to a campaign is a fundamental constitutional right and I think that our current campaign finance laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
As you note, the courts don’t agree with my position here. You thus propose public financing for campaigns. That idea makes me even more uncomfortable than the current donation limits. In a public financing system, isn’t there going to be an upper-limit on how much may be spent? No matter how many people want to donate to your campaign and cause, you can only spend up to a certain limit?
It is better to require candidates to disclose donations. I’d go so far as to say that donations should be disclosed, in detail and on the web, before the money can be spent. Then the people have the power to decide if they choose. I love http://opensecrets.org/.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Bradley - I’m having posting problems. This may pop up twice.
A couple days ago I posted about campaign finance and I think I may have addressed some of your concerns. I think a system of campaign financing where candidates can opt for the traditional dialing for dollars approach or a publicly funded campaign. The idea of spending limits sounds scary until you consider that currently our campaigns are spending wars - he who spends the most wins. If a candidate were to privately finance and his/her opponent publicy finance, the publicly financed candidate would recieve 85% of the what the other candidate raised (to account for the cost of fundraising). If both privately finance, let them follow the current system. If both publicy finance, candidates could agree on how many ads they’ll produce and run and then it’s easy to get the costs of media in various markets.
In 2004, I saw a documentary about a state legislative candidate who had an insanely brutal schedule - his campaign was 16 and 18 hours a day and he was spending every moment not scheduled with voters to dial for dollars. (I think he won by less than 100 votes). Fundraising consumed hours of each day that could have been spent with voters or learning about issues.
I also think publicy funded campaigns would level the playing and remove the incentives the wealthy and connected have to purchase our government.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
We need to find a way to restrict corporate donations without restricting donations by unions and environmental groups. Has anyone figured out a way of doing this?
Donations by corporations and wealthy individuals have to go, but donations by employee, women’s and environmental groups benefit democracy
January 8th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
If only the pocketbook rules, there’d be altogether too many of us with no voice but the vote. So the rich get all the propaganda options, the quid pro quo, and a vote as well. Something about this playin’ field ain’t exactly on the level.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Imagine a race where two poor people are competing. They couldn’t run without public financing. Now imagine that the government rules for public campaigns (where all parties are publicly funded) limits each candidate to $10 for photocopy costs and two televised debates. Would you be okay with that? I wouldn’t. I’m not okay with the government setting the limits on what constitutes a good or sufficient campaign. I fear it would tend to favor people already in power. The government shouldn’t be in the business of funding speech, just in the business of protecting speech.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:16 am
My feeling is that this is an issue that can be fairly and sensibly resolved, without bloodshed. Like the title of another thread suggested, it is part of that ‘Threashold’ legislation that would impact so much of what follows. It’s about democracy. Let’s evolve in that direction. Peace C.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Bradley - Let’s assume that public financing rules place those limits on campaign spending. Why would the people not demand more funding? Conversely, if that photocopying and two TV debates were enough, why would that be a problem? So much depends on the office the candidates are seeking. If it’s a Senate seat, obviously that’s not enough. If it’s dog catcher, it might be too much.
As I said before, funding could be provided based on the costs of the local media markets (which vary widely across the country) as well the needs of the candidates. Interestingly, there’s nothing requiring a candidate to spend money in specific ways- maybe public financing pays for 3 TV ads to be produced and run a total of 63 times (that’s each ad running 3 times per day for one week). A candidate may make a really effective ad once and use the extra money for GOTV. Public financing has several goals - limiting the influence of large contributors over policies, levelling the playing field between the wealthy and the rest of us and producing a system with more integrity. Where they’ve been used clean campaigns have been successful - see Janet Napolitano in AZ. I think we would see more civic participation in a publicly financed system, not less, so there would be more motivation for politicians to adequately fund campaigns.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I find the goals of public financing very admirable, and you defend them well. At a more fundamental level, I’m answering your title question in the affirmative. Money must be treated as speech.
If spending money is a form of speech, then I can’t be comfortable with the government telling me when I’ve “spoken enough” for a “fair contest.” Freedom of speech is about NOT allowing the majority (as represented by the government) to silence (or quiet) the minority.
It is statements like those from “Me” above that make the best argument against public financing. Some majority gets in power and decides that some segment of the population shouldn’t have a voice. Let’s face it, those out of power need to spend more money than those in power in order to be heard.
Granted, if money is not a form of speech, then the argument doesn’t apply. I think, based on your post that we probably agree on that point.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I might add that Michael Moore at UVSC is a good illustration of the problem of public financing. I’m happy to let Michael Moore speak all he wants to on his own dime. But a lot of people (including me) were agitated by the thought that a state college would pay to host a speaker with such low academic standards. (Yes, I know they made the money back in ticket sales, so I’m not as bugged now. Yes, I was even more bugged when we paid so much to have Sean Hannity come speak.)
Better to let people (and their supporters) pay for their own speech rather than have the government do it.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Bradley,
Low public standards? I guess you would shiver, then, were Bill Gates invited to speak at UVSC on the students’ dime. After all, Gates is but a college dropout!
January 9th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Oops, my bad. I meant “low academic standards.”
January 9th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I meant, by academic standards, that a person has a basic commitment to honest and factual discourse. Many people on the left possess this sort of intellectual integrity and rigor. Michael Moore does not.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Tell us Bradley, What did Michael Moore say that did not constitute free speech. Certainly those of us who were there felt he spoke for us. Bush is by any standard corrupt and dishonest not to menion incompetent.
Michael Moore is a brave patriotic American.
I hear sour grapes from you.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Cliff, I don’t understand what it is in my comment you are objecting to. I don’t think I implied that Michael Moore doesn’t or shouldn’t have free speech. Having free speech is not the right to have the government (or anyone else) pay for your speech. Do you disagree?
January 11th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Bradley,
I see your point, that Michael Moore is not the sharpest crayon in the box, but (I think) colleges invite (and pay for) speakers on a regular basis. It was not the wisest choice by any means, but I am (as you alluded to above) more angry that Sean Hannity lied(?) about speaking for free and then charged something like $50,000 for expenses. My main experience with such speakers is BYU, and admittedly I can’t imagine them inviting someone as particularly controversial as Moore (whom I find boorish), but I also don’t think they would ever invite Ann Coulter (whom I find highly entertaining and sometimes insightful–I think Al Franken is funny too, it’s just that I disagree with him a lot more). BYU didrecently invite Jean Bethke Elshtain, though, who recently wrote the book “Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World “.
Cliff,
I agree with Bradley that he didn’t dispute Moore’s right to free speech. His original point on this sub-topic was that Michael Moore does not possess intellectual rigor. I agree.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Affiliate Directory…
…