Conservative

Pulliam: Congress must continue to block threats to free speech

On Sept. 11, the Senate voted down a proposed constitutional amendment that would have overturned the decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Committee.

In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled based on the First Amendment that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, unions and other associations.
The proposed amendment, officially called Senate Joint Resolution 19, has good intentions, but could pose dangerous limits on freedom of speech.  Compromising on the First Amendment is a risk that should not be taken and the Senate should continue to shoot down proposed amendments regarding free speech.

Introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Senate Joint Resolution 19 proposes that “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”  The resolution further states that “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.”  Lastly, SJR 19 states that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”
Seems simple enough; the resolution would allow the government to have the power to restrict spending by corporations and other groups so that they cannot unfairly influence the democratic process.

Or, to put it another way, the government would have the power to jail or fine groups of citizens for participating in political speech.

The intended effects behind the amendment are well-meaning.  The resolution aims to keep small groups of individuals from obtaining too much power in the political process through monetary contributions.



However, granting Congress the ability to restrict spending made by groups of individuals only puts power into a smaller group of hands.  One hundred Senators and 435 Representatives having the means to restrict political speech is a much higher concentration of power among a smaller group of people than any corporation making a donation toward a political advertisement.

Supporters of the amendment would argue that corporations are not people.  However, corporations are groups of people.  Individuals should not lose their First Amendment rights when put in aggregate.  A group of individuals still retains its respective individual rights.

SJR 19 not only restricts corporations, but also covers “other artificial entities.”  These entities could include nonprofit organizations and labor unions.

What if the American Association of Retired Persons wants to donate to a candidate who wishes to spend more federal dollars on Medicare?  Labor unions and nonprofits, like corporations, are groups of individuals who compile resources to achieve a certain goal.  These individuals have the right to free speech; why should they lose it when they join together in a group?

Keeping the democratic process as fair as possible is a noble goal, but sacrificing First Amendment rights and giving more power to politicians is a dangerous road to go down. Free speech dodged a bullet with the blocking of Senate Joint Resolution 19.

Chris Pulliam is a sophomore policy studies and political science major. His column appears weekly.   He can be reached at [email protected].





Top Stories