Money and Free Speech

The Supreme Court today expanded the right of both corporations and unions to directly engage in political speech. While I applaud this decision as an extension of free political expression and a check on self-serving government interference in the political process, I am cognizant of the risks such freedom poses. It is up to the people, not the government, however, to manage those risks.

The right to free speech is one of the most fundamental rights granted by the United States Constitution. Throughout the 20th century, the doctrine of the First Amendment has expanded dramatically both in areas which are important to our democracy (the right to avoid being coerced into speech one disagrees with) and those which are irrelevant to it (pornography). The core of the First Amendment, however, must remain in protecting speech aimed at educating and influencing participation in the political process. Governments and politicians will forever seek to suppress messages and messengers with whom they disagree. They cannot be allowed to do so.

Is it possible that the increased participation of corporations and unions in the political process will lead to some cases of corruption? The obvious answer is yes. We have laws against bribery, however, as well as enforcement authorities who have successfully prosecuted them in egregious cases. But more importantly, I have faith in the citizens of New Hampshire, and across the United States, to intelligently consider both the political messages they hear and the sources from which they come. And ultimately politicians must be judged by what they do, not what they say.

The highly corrupt practices of enacting special interest earmarks for one’s campaign contributors and cutting special deals with industries in order to obtain their support for legislation which are rampant in the current Democratic Congress speak for themselves. As long as we maintain a regime of robust disclosure, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the people themselves can perform their disciplinary duty in a far more effective way than the government. They started to do so in Massachusetts on Tuesday and I am confident they will do so in November.