It’s lucky for the First Amendment that the DISCLOSE Act did not pass last Tuesday. The bill seems innocent enough, attempting “to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.”
According to The New American, the act would have allowed the Federal Election Commission to regulate political speech on the Internet. Not million-dollar television commercials. Not expensive billboards. The Internet. The only place many grassroot critics have a chance to share their opinions.
Not to mention that the bill exempts large organizations, such as the National Rifle Association and labor unions, meaning that free speech is subjective to them. The only organizations exempted are the ones that the current government views as more legitimate.
I don’t feel bad for the corporations that were supposedly going to be “put in check” by this bill. I care much less about who contributes to a politician’s campaign than I do about the legislation that the politician supports once in office. I hate every politician who supported the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) payments, whether or not his or her campaigns was funded by its recipients. Plus, there are infinite ways to launder money with or without legislation like this. The government is trying to fight a battle it simply cannot win.
I mean, come on. Subsidies, charters and limited liability – I wonder how they became so powerful. Most of these corporations are a product of the government. So, let’s get the story straight. The past government gives power to the corporations. Then the corporations take over the government through lobbying. Then the new government, which is basically a branch-off of the old government, tries to kill the corporations. But, instead, it ends up killing the free speech of the people it represents and itself. Does no one else see the parallel to "Hamlet" here?
Who will come in the shape of Fortinbras? We don’t know. You cannot read the First Amendment in two different ways. Speech is either free or it is not. Yes, free speech has a downside sometimes, but that’s the price of liberty, and a cheap one at that.
If our elected officials can’t do their jobs without bending to the will of special interests, then maybe it’s time to move away from this “representative” democracy and head toward the republic this country was meant to be.
Reach Brian at brian.p.anderson@asu.edu
