PD Editorial: Costly speech

<p>Free speech isn't always free. And thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday, it's about to get a lot more expensive for regular citizens and middle-class candidates wanting to have their voices heard during election time.</p><p>In a blockbuster 5-4 decision, the high court tossed out as unconstitutional long-time prohibitions on corporations and labor unions to freely support or oppose candidates for federal office.</p><p>The court also struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2002 that prohibits union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the final days of election campaigns.</p><p>“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.</p><p>In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens called the majority opinion “a rejection of the common sense of the American people,” noting that the public has “fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”</p><p>Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined him in the dissent.</p><p>Nevertheless, the ruling didn't come entirely as a surprise as supporters of existing campaign spending laws were forced to support the untenable position that those rules could require the banning of certain movies and books just prior to elections.</p><p>The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, concerned a feature-length movie put out in 2008 by a nonprofit group attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Federal election officials found that the movie qualified as “electioneering communication” and thus was subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions. As such, the group was prohibited from showing the movie in the last 30 days before an election.</p><p>First Amendment purists have reason to applaud this decision as a major blow in defense of free speech and the free market place of ideas. But the net effect is to open the floodgates to special interests, corporations, labor groups and others being more directly involved in the election process.</p><p>The biggest losers will be voters who, already weary of partisan politicking, are likely to see a surge in campaign spending in this year's midterm elections — a surge that is, at best, likely to further muddy the waters of truth and, at worst, have a corrupting influence.</p><p>The president and congressional leaders have pledged to fix this break in the levee, but the repairs are not likely to be done in time to stop the damage that's likely to occur this year. Voters beware.</p>