White House To Freedom: You’re just sooooo 1800
June 21, 2010
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
It should be no surprise to those who watch, but just know: the tide against freedom is continuing.
Today – it’s the DISCLOSE Act, meant to remove the freedom enhancing SCOTUS decision earlier this year (via the Atlantic here):
…The DISCLOSE Act, aimed at addressing the Supreme Court’s Jan. Citizens United v. FEC ruling by requiring additional campaign finance disclosures from outside organizations that can run political advertisements, ran into snags last week….
What is this wonderful legislation you ask (here via ABC News)?
…A pending piece of legislation known as the Disclose Act would require the heads of companies, unions and nonprofit groups to personally appear in any sponsored political ads and endorse the message. It would also require them to reveal the names of the top five donors who helped foot the advertising bill….
Which seems like a solution a Senator might have picked up from visiting an elementary school, but the reality is the Disclose act is an incredible move against free speech. There are some complaints about the political nature that are indeed worth noting:
…But House Democrats, eager to pass the bill and avoid a fight with one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies, have agreed to exempt from the new rules a small but highly influential group of organizations that most notably includes the NRA….
Obviously excluding certain, influential lobbying groups for tighter rules is a no-no, but the real danger is losing the idea of anonymity with reference to free speech.
The objections come from the usual sources – Cato (here). They note that while proponents of the bill claim to resolve these ills:
Rep. Price cites three harms from such speech: “the opportunity for corporations, unions and associations to dominate the playing field, intimidating public officials and drowning out the candidates’ own messages.”…
That in reality:
…Notice that these alleged harms are caused by the speech itself and not by the fact that the speech might be anonymous….
Yes indeed, what Senators and the White House is claiming is that by knowing exactly who wrote message X, or even who funded message X, that you now understand more about message X than you would’ve otherwise. Which works well on a micro level, say arguing on the play ground & when you start losing you can just yell out “liar” or “stupid”, but in real life – for those seeking the best we can hope for, the messenger is less important overall than the message itself.
Don’t misunderstand – pointing and laughing at hypocrites who tell us what to do when they refuse to do so is funny, amusing, and a good waste of time, but ultimately irrelevant to whether the points they made were indeed true.
The odd part about this… it’s likely to die solely because of the exemptions and not because it’s an attack on free speech… but in case it does contain longevity, here’s the ACLU’s thoughts as well (via Reason.com here):
1. The DISCLOSE Act fails to preserve the anonymity of small donors, thereby especially chilling the expression rights of those who support controversial causes….
2. The DISCLOSE Act would chill not only express advocacy on political candidates, but also issue advocacy….
3. The DISCLOSE Act imposes impractical requirements on those who wish to communicate using broadcasting messages….
4. The DISCLOSE Act imposes unjust restrictions on contractors, TARP participants and corporations with minimal foreign participation.
Categories: Politics, Regulation/Deregulation, SCOTUS
| 
Tags: ACLU, Cato, DICLOSE Act, Freedom of Speech, Obama Administration, Reason.com, The Atlantic
|
Leave a reply
I was just read a Disclose act headline today, and wondered about the details. The very rich are least likely to fall prey to intimidation, while the small donor could face repercussions from loss or denial of employment to social ostracization. I am not sure I am against listing all corporate donors, or even large donations, but exemptions seen patently unfair.
Btw, you repeated your four points. I also followed the link to your friend’s interesting Rwanda site.
Thanks for the editing fix – I always send faster than I should
To the act itself – I’m not completely against the idea of disclosing donors as someone say…. spending money on green ads for certain candidates, but also is investing heavily in the same technology is an interesting twist. Let’s call our example, Al Gore.
So this guy, Mr. Gore, continues to spend money, lobby governments, and give speeches all to push certain technologies for which he’s already invested.
In the end however, no matter how much one might despise my Mr. Gore is my completely made up example, his points should still either stand by themselves or die by themselves.
No the usefulness in knowing about Mr. Gores contributions, lobbying efforts, and business ties isn’t for the normal person to make decisions on voting – it’s for our leaders to use as political points against their opponents.
& Lastly, regardless of how poor or how rich I am – I should still be entitled to the same rights everyone else has & anonymous speech, especially anonymous political speech should be considered sacrosanct by our leaders.