In a column devoted to Free-Speech Week, Thomas Donlan of Barron’s focuses some attention on a recent congressional proposal to limit speech.
Among those exercising their right of free speech during this campaign season were 54 members of the U.S. Senate seeking to further abridge the right to support political candidates and causes. They supported a Constitutional amendment that said:
“Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
“Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
“Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”
Those who worry most about the influence of money in politics may find nothing threatening here, but this is a radical document. Were it adopted, it would be the first provision reducing the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. In its reduction of the First Amendment, it explicitly protects only the freedom of the press. The other four guarantees would be up for grabs.
On a procedural vote last month, 52 Democrats and two nominal independents supported the amendment, 42 Republicans opposed it, and one Democrat and three Republicans didn’t vote. Since 60 votes were needed to bring the resolution to the floor, it failed.
The 54 supporters of the amendment are professional politicians who attained their high office by campaigning and vote-counting, so they knew that their effort was futile and symbolic.
So what were they trying to tell us? They wanted to remind voters of their concern about the power of money in elections. They say they believe that the U.S. is in danger of becoming—or has become—an oligarchy.
Senate Majority Leader Harry’s Reid’s distaste for David and Charles Koch has become obsessive. He has denounced them as “un-American” for financing ad campaigns against Obamacare.
But there’s nothing un-American about political debate, even when the combatants use Reid’s pugnacious and hyperbolic style or the Kochs’ aggressive negative advertising.
And if there’s an American oligarchy, all 100 senators are members of it. The 54 supporters of the amendment also used pots of money to obtain their seats in the Senate. Whether they used their personal money or the money of corporations or unions or wealthy donors or millions of small donations, they all climbed the greasy pole of political success on stacks of cash.
