Speech Isn't Free

Tonight on PBS's NOW program, host David Brancaccio surveyed several of the campaign public funding initiatives around the nation, including Arizona's "Clean Elections." (Watch a 6-minute segment here.) The state's current governor, Janet Napolitano, is the only sitting state executive who ran using public financing. In Arizona, that means the candidate cannot accept donations of more than $5, then a formula kicks in that provides public dollars, which hypothetically gives everyone the same amount to spend on campaigns - and keeps "big money" out of elections.

The movement has certainly resulted in strange bedfellows. On NOW, both Republicans and Democrats spoke in favor of and against public financing. Brancaccio pointed out, for instance, that in Arizona Republicans gained more legislative seats using Clean Elections, a strategy that many people initially saw as a Trojan Horse for progressives.

Certainly even those who support the idea realize there are still wrinkles to iron out, and more than a few loud voices continue their attempts to dismantle public financing.

The ACLU objects to the movement, for instance, because they see it as a restriction on speech. I guess they have to, given their philosophy, just like they protect Nazi rallies. So be it, but I'd argue the current system restricts even more voices - those that don't happen to have $20 million to run for Congress, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign for the Legislature or city council.

One can understand why Big Pharm, Big Oil, developers, realtors, and other corporate groups are fighting Clean Elections and similar versions, since their money has historically provided access and influence. Suddenly, their dollars aren't eligible, while people giving $5 feel like they have an equal voice. But the comment that blew me away during Brancaccio's interviews was one by Ben Barr from the ultra-conservative Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based think tank that Barry Goldwater would be ashamed to share his name with.

Barr trotted out the usual shibboleth that limiting dollars in politics also limits speech. Brancaccio proposed a hypothetical: Developers want to build a mall, and they pour tons of money into one candidate's coffers to help him exercise his "free speech." While the anti-mall candidate has far fewer dollars to get his message out. To this Barr replied:

Speech isn't free.

There you have it. No bullshitting around with philosophical gymnastics or Constitutional debate or historical reflection. Barr's saying what we all know, but they seldom put it so honestly. No money, no speech. Just like Jefferson wrote it.

•  It was just refreshing to hear

  one of these guys say what they really believe, rather than go through the constitutional contortions - where it sounds like they're speaking for you.

  by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:37:03 PM PDT

  •  A penny for your thoughts...

    ...comes to mind. While the cars come around... I just love someone taking a stand - with conviction and no tools but their god-gifts.

    by keechi on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:42:03 AM PDT

•  was thinking about something similar last night

  In High School our football coach made up a bunch of bumper stickers that said "There's No Free Lunch!".  Each team member got one.  It was a good way to build team spirit and in the end the team did very very well that year.

  This applies to the Tax-Cut Republicans that want to push everything off to the next generation of Americans.  Can we really trust a tex-cut Republican to do what is right in ANY situation?

  by lightnessofbeing on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:38:04 PM PDT

•  Well...

  ...as I am probably one of the only Kossacks who is a longstanding opponent of this sort of "reform", I might as well get it out there in the open.

  This is the text of the First Amendment:

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  What does that Amendment say?  Does it say that the government has the right to try and make a means for every American to get equal time to speak to an equal number of people?  No, it does not.

  It says that Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  That no law restricting the freedom of speech can be permitted.  Which promises no equality of any kind.  We all still are stuck with our gifts and handicaps.  Not all people who speak are as good at it as others.  Not all people who speak have as useful or intelligent ideas to express as others.  And yes, not all people have the equal prestige, respect, fame, or wealth that allows their voices to be heard by as many as others.

  I'm as opposed to corruption and payoffs as I think I can be.  But what you suggest is that because we cannot (for some reason) police that corruption, we must eviscerate the literal meaning of the First Amendment to appeal to what you think is the greater "truth" of free speech.  And I'm not onboard, and neither is the Bill of Rights.

  by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:42:18 PM PDT

  •  "Congress shall make no law"

    but we do it all the time, regretfully perhaps, but the courts do it. Even the suggestion that we "police that corruption" could be interpreted as such. But Clean Elections and similar initiatives are not mandatory; they're optional avenues, so candidates who want to pursue the usual path are free to accept corporate dollars. Nowhere did I say every candidate must run using public financing. I don't support that for the reasons you state. But for those who want to stump for thousands of $5 contributions from regular Joes, it provides a means to exercise speech.

    by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:59:10 PM PDT

    •  Well..

      ...I suppose that is one way of looking at it then.  I'll still oppose it, since I can think of a host of other issues related to the public financing of elections (not least that it would compel all Americans to support political speech, and since I consider not voting or supporting the political process to be a valid political choice and this would infringe on that right) but I was seeing it in more of a McCain-Feingold manner.  Thanks for clarifying it for me.

      by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:22:08 PM PDT

      •  I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for now,

        but you are right: there are still lots of questions. As long as it encourages more participation in the political process - rather than restrict speech - that's a good thing. What gripes me, I guess, are the corporations who hijack the Bill of Rights argument, which is a legitimate debate, when it comes from people who genuinely care about the amendments.  

        by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:34:13 PM PDT

        •  What bugs me...

          ...are the politicians who take that cash and then are willing to use that money to get themselves into a position where they can "pay it back" on the backs of American citizens.  And I can't believe that not only do they do it, but their parties nominate them to do it again and again and people vote to allow them to continue to do it again and again.

          How hard is it for Democrats to get rid of a single corrupt and inept Senator from Conneticut?  How hard is it for anyone to get rid of any incumbent in any way?  There are checks built into the system already, and it drives me crazy that we've allowed them to become so disused.

          by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:38:18 PM PDT

          •  Well, Arizona has term limits,

            so incumbents don't really have much of an opportunity to "pay it back" for very long. But I'm no fan of that system, hoping that citizens will toss out the bad seeds the best way - with their votes. But, as you note, that doesn't work, mostly because of the incumbent's advantage in raising cash, which public financing tries to address. A circular deal with the devil, I guess.

            by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:56:00 PM PDT

            •  Not just that...

              ...but the districting is outrageous.  I don't think much of Gov. Ahnuld, but he at least had an idea of a better way for it to be done, and both parties fought tooth and nail against it.  So of course, California will remain gerrymandered, like every state with enough population to have more than a couple of representatives.

              My district includes about ten blocks of my neighborhood in the East Village, along with large, noncontigous blocks of Brooklyn and Queens.  And while I like my representative, she's unapposed this election.  Nothing says Democracy like rigging it so the people don't actually have a choice, huh?

              by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:59:36 PM PDT

              •  In my state, an Indian on a rural reservation

                doesn't often have a friggin' chance of having real representation, since many outlying districts go into the more populated, pro-growth urban areas - where the votes and money are. My district includes the most urban, high-dense (for the Southwest) city, along with very rural small towns and Native reservations. And these smaller, once very desireable places, are changing a lot - not all of it good.  

                by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:17:23 PM PDT

•  Clean elections are no abridgement

  They facilitate free speech.  The rich can still buy the biggest megaphone they can afford.  This program (CE) just provides a megaphone for the little guy.  I've never accepted the supremes twisted assertion that $=speech, which rudely shoves most of us into a quiet corner, but under these laws you only restrict spending, not speech, and then only if the candidate chooses to accept public funding.  Broncaccio is beginning to fill Moyers very large shoes.

  by UneasyOne on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:16:36 PM PDT

•  Fundamental Constitutional Flaw

  This is what you get when you turn a space-age information economy loose into an 18th century frontier so-called system of government.

  Think about this for a minute. What job would YOU hire a fellow for who never heard of any modern energy source, mass medium, global anything, any American state west of the Appalachians, someone who didn't know that natives and Africans were homo sapiens, that disease was caused by tiny organisms....

  Why, of course, you'd hire him to design the framework that defines the limits of how you can govern genetic engineering, nuclear weaponry, realtime global communications --everything.

  Give our framers credit for one tragically overlooked bit of foresight. They knew we'd need to keep their system current with the march of progress.

  Which we're behind the times now 1 full century and counting.

  Which the people who hired the Republicans have understood for a lifetime. Don't get too excited even if we win everything we hope for in November. Because they're already interviewing, and they know they need to be sharper with their next class.

  by Gooserock on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:26:57 PM PDT