The Militant (logo)  

Vol. 76/No. 22      June 4, 2012

 
Bill aims to ‘fix’ Bill of Rights
by curbing freedom of speech
 
BY EMMA JOHNSON  
A so-called People’s Rights Amendment to the Constitution, championed mainly by congressional Democrats, would curb free speech rights by voiding them for “corporate entities.” The campaign for this bill is part of a growing push, among liberal politicians especially, to “fix” the Bill of Rights and the protections it affords working people from the capitalists’ government by giving their government more powers to do good things for “the people.”

The amendment, backed by Democratic Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi, was introduced in Congress April 18 by Rep. Jim McGovern, (D-Mass.) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). It states that constitutional protections on free speech apply only to “natural persons,” while “corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities” are “subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives deem reasonable.”

The final section of the proposed amendment promises that it would not “be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people.”

In other words, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would apply only to people acting as individuals, but would be subject to government regulation when individuals act in combination with others through “corporate entities,” which could include businesses, unions, “nonprofits,” political parties, media, corporations, etc.

The “People’s Rights” push in Congress is a response to a Supreme Court decision in 2010 that struck down part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which purports to curb the influence of “big money” on federal elections. In a 5-4 vote, the court declared unconstitutional the act’s prohibition on corporations and unions using their general treasury funds for “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.”

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, which sought protection for possible criminal and civil penalties for airing a video in 2008 that was critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was at the time a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

‘Political speech must prevail’

“Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it,” the court ruled. “Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.”

Liberals were “in shock,” according to National Public Radio. President Barack Obama in his 2010 State of the Union speech criticized the Supreme Court ruling. “I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems,” he said, claiming the decision would lead to a “stampede of special interest money in our politics.”

The Supreme Court pointed out that campaign donors already “find ways around campaign finance laws.”

“Today the Court has enthroned corporations … moving to grant them the same political rights as the people,” asserted FreeSpeechforPeople.org, a website set up to garner support and donations for the People’s Rights Amendment. “This is a moment of high danger for democracy, so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people.”

But the idea that individuals retain their constitutional rights when they act in association with others has always been part of U.S. law, as has the concept of “corporate personhood,” which legally treats corporations as persons.

Minority Leader Pelosi presents the move to amend the Constitution as part of a three-pronged strategy, along with increased taxpayer funding for political campaigns of the rulers’ two parties, and passage of the Disclose Act, which would further increase requirements for organizations that run political ads to disclose the names of their contributors.

In the same 2010 ruling the Supreme Court simultaneously struck a blow against the rights of working people to participate in politics without fear of government reprisals. The court upheld by a margin of 8-1 stipulations of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that require Citizens United to publicly disclose the names of its contributors. The decision was consistent with widespread bipartisan support for so-called disclosure laws among the propertied rulers and their politicians in the name of “transparency.”

Only Justice Clarence Thomas, most loathed by the liberals, dissented on the disclosure requirement. “I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in ‘core political speech,’ the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection,’” he wrote.

The Socialist Workers Party is among the organizations that have long fought against disclosure laws, and won exemption for its candidates from having to provide the government with names of their supporters.

In 2009 the Federal Elections Commission voted to extend the party’s exemption for four more years, two years less than the extensions granted over the previous two decades. The SWP submitted evidence of 77 documented cases of “physical attacks on SWP campaign supporters and offices, threatening mail and telephone calls, job firings and discrimination, and harassment of SWP supporters and campaign efforts by federal and local law enforcement as well as private individuals” from 2002 to 2008.

The FEC decided to “reassess” the SWP’s disclosure exemption sooner based on a supposed decline in the severity of harassment incidents—a ruling that flew in the face of extensive evidence presented to the commission, including a 2004 firebombing of the party’s campaign hall in Hazleton, Pa. During the FEC hearing, commission member Ellen Weintraub said, “Perhaps next time [disclosure exemption] will not be necessary.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home