Name a country that criminalizes many forms of political
speech. If you said the United States, you’d be right–thanks to
the anti-free speech movement, led by individuals such as Senator McCain (R-AZ).
The anti-free speech movement has had a lot of success in North
Carolina. This week, it looks like they will have more “success”
in restricting political speech (in state elections) through banning
what are called electioneering communications (basically ads that refer
to candidates) for 80 days before primary elections (the current
restriction is 30 days), and for 110 days before general elections (the
current restriction is 60 days).
There also will be expansion of taxpayer financing
of campaigns–these systems chill the speech of candidates and
independent groups, force taxpayers to support speech they oppose,
protect incumbents, and do nothing to improve governmental ethics, but
the anti-free speech movement has a lot of power in this state.
If you are a corrupt legislator, what would you prefer: real reform, or
“reform” that satisfies the anti-free speech movement and best of all
ensures that you stay in power?
Even legislators that oppose
taxpayer financing like the idea of criminalizing a lot of political
speech–particularly the speech of independent groups, including
527s. If the speech of independent groups can somehow be
restricted in some manner, this means the legislators don’t have to
worry about any outside criticism and they can control everything that
is said about them.
It would be nice if real reform began with
the legislature reforming itself, and not restricting the speech of the
public. Of course, that won’t happen in NC where the legislature
can benefit itself even in the name of reform.
