The Left's War on the 1st Amendment, Part 1
During President Obama's eight years, his left-leaning administration made at least three serious efforts to undermine the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
Two were unsuccessful. The third, for a critical time, succeeded.
In January 2008, Citizens United released a 90-minute documentary, "Hillary: The Movie," about
Mrs. Clinton, who then was a candidate in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary. The film featured interviews -- mostly critical -- with political commentators and others.
It was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to increase distribution by making it available through video on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections. Fearing it would be prosecuted for violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, it sued to have the act declared unconstitutional.
In the 2010 Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy, for the majority, wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
In Citizens United, the court overruled or distinguished its earlier decision which prohibited "corporations from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate."
The BCRA had allowed such speech only out of "special funds" raised by "political action committees," and not within 30 days before a primary election.
President Obama denounced Citizens United, asserting that it:
A. Allowed corporations to make unlimited donations to candidates or political parties, and
B. Allowed foreign corporations the same rights as domestic corporations.
Mr. Obama knew better.
In the court's own words, the only issue before the court was whether a corporation could use its "general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate."
And as regards "foreign corporations," the court specifically wrote, "We need not reach the question whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."
In Citizens United, none of the parties were "foreign corporations."
Two years later, in 2012, in U.S. v. Alvarez , the Obama administration prosecuted a liar for falsely saying, "I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times." The government made no claim the liar lied for material gain, or to harm any person. The Obama administration prosecuted the liar for simply lying -- nothing more.
President Obama's Justice Department argued "that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection." The court disagreed:
"Were the court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition.
"Here the lie was made in a public meeting, but the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home.
Had the court upheld the Obama administration's contention, Congress would have been green-lighted to criminalize parental lies to their children -- in the privacy of their own home: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus," could carry a fine or jail time.
Then, of course, the third effort was the Obama administration's misuse of the IRS was to destroy the political effectiveness of the tea party groups. This was done by slow-walking or denying the requests of the groups for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Without the ability to receive tax-free donations, and without their donors receiving deductions for their donations, some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, were gagged for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The refusal to grant the tea party groups tax-free status also meant they had to pay taxes on any moneys they raised. The tactic worked. Tea Party groups were a non-factor in the 2012 presidential election.
President Trump's 2016 electoral victory removed power from the hands of the Democrats power to use the machinery of government to limit the speech of the conservative opposition. Now the battle to over free speech has moved from the White House, the IRS and the courts to the streets.
Posted: QCOline.com September 13, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea
And as regards "foreign corporations," the court specifically wrote, "We need not reach the question whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."
In Citizens United, none of the parties were "foreign corporations."
Two years later, in 2012, in U.S. v. Alvarez , the Obama administration prosecuted a liar for falsely saying, "I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times." The government made no claim the liar lied for material gain, or to harm any person. The Obama administration prosecuted the liar for simply lying -- nothing more.
President Obama's Justice Department argued "that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection." The court disagreed:
"Were the court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition.
"Here the lie was made in a public meeting, but the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home.
Had the court upheld the Obama administration's contention, Congress would have been green-lighted to criminalize parental lies to their children -- in the privacy of their own home: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus," could carry a fine or jail time.
Then, of course, the third effort was the Obama administration's misuse of the IRS was to destroy the political effectiveness of the tea party groups. This was done by slow-walking or denying the requests of the groups for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Without the ability to receive tax-free donations, and without their donors receiving deductions for their donations, some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, were gagged for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The refusal to grant the tea party groups tax-free status also meant they had to pay taxes on any moneys they raised. The tactic worked. Tea Party groups were a non-factor in the 2012 presidential election.
President Trump's 2016 electoral victory removed power from the hands of the Democrats power to use the machinery of government to limit the speech of the conservative opposition. Now the battle to over free speech has moved from the White House, the IRS and the courts to the streets.
Posted: QCOline.com September 13, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment