To the editor:
Mr. Coppock in his letter of March 12 suggests that the We The People Act currently in committee at the State House and a topic at the upcoming Town Meeting is an effort to “amend the first amendment.” It is not.
Mr. Coppock also says that the We The People Act is opposed by the ACLU. In fact, there is apparently a “deep rift” at the ACLU over its “official” position on the Citizens United decision, according to a Roll Call report this past fall: “’There is a very, very significant divide within the ACLU on this’, said New York University law professor Burt Neuborne, one of six prominent former ACLU officials who wrote to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 4 to publicly denounce the national ACLU’s campaign finance position.” See also “The ACLU Gets It Wrong,” an editorial in the Amendment Gazette.
The ACLU opposes any restrictions on free speech. So do I, when it comes to citizens. But the Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases of Citizens United and McCutcheon amplify the voices of corporations and billionaires, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens, and the ACLU is wrong in supporting them.
What the ACLU, and the Supreme Court, do not seem to recognize is how far these two decisions have gone in replacing a democratic government of, by and for the people with an oligarchy corrupted by the influence of big money in politics. Money is not equal to free speech; it should be “one person, one vote,” not “one dollar. one vote.” Corporations are political constructs whose sole goal is to make money in any way they can; they should not have the rights in the U.S. Constitution reserved specifically for natural persons.
Sincerely,
Jean Palmer
Tower Road
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.
Ms. Palmer implies that the proposed amendment to take away all corporate Constitutional rights would affect only businesses. Not true. The amendment would take away the Constitutional rights of ALL “artificial entities”–non-profits such as hospitals, charities such as Catholic Charities and Combined Jewish Philanthropies, incorporated churches (the Roman Catholic Archbishop is a corporation sole), political parties, labor unions, and kennel clubs. In short, every entity in America. Do we REALLY want to take away the rights of those entities to Due Process, Equal Protection, Free Exercise of Religion, and Free Speech, not to mention the right to enforce their contracts and do business across state lines? Revocation of the Constitutional rights of artificial entities would amount to a return to the Articles of Confederation, when each state had its own tariffs.
But wait, there is more. The proposed amendment would REQUIRE Congress and the States to limit the Constitutional right of EVERYONE to spend money to “influence elections.” The Solicitor General admitted in argument before the Supreme Court that this language would permit the banning of books and movies. With this amendment we would enter a political Golden Age where no one can say anything that might “influence elections.” I never liked those interest group voter guides anyway.
To better understand the proper role of corporations in American politics, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCxLwCpJ2HI.
Read for yourself what the ACLU has to say about Citizens United. It does not seem ambiguous to me.
“The ACLU and Citizens United
“In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.
“That decision has sparked a great deal of controversy. Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.
“We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.
“At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.
“In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.
“Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.
“Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.
“It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.
“Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of ‘big money’ in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united