In a remarkable reversal of the status quo, the Supreme Court of the United States has overturned limits on election spending by corporations and by unions. From the New York Times:
Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.
The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.
While I am, by and large, a huge champion on unfettered free speech, there is that classic limit — it’s not free speech to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. (Unless, of course, the theatre is actually on fire.)
I would argue that most political advertising — whether it is paid for by a corporation, a union, or a political candidate — has, lately tended towards the “Fire!” It’s alarmist and over-the-top. It’s negative in a way that diminishes respect for the process of democracy, for politicians themselves, and for government in general.
No, perhaps it’s not exactly the same as causing an immediate, dangerous panic. But I believe most political advertising is the equivalent of pointing at your opponent and yelling “Arsonist!” while simultaneously pointing at your candidate and yelling “Firefighter!”
I don’t necessarily have a better solution, but here’s a suggestion: Instead of restricting political advertising, why not ban it altogether? Politicians, make your point in person.
Grant Hamilton
-
MPot