Will the DISCLOSE Act muzzle free speech?
Posted by Jonathan Bechtle - July 09, 2010George Will thinks so. In his latest column he blasts Congress' response to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the ban on corporate/labor contributions to political campaigns in Citizens United:
In Congress, Democrats have not yet put the final blemishes on their proposal for restricting political advocacy, the Disclose Act (a clunky acronym - Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections), but already it is so awful it is excellent. Its nakedly partisan provisions, and the squalid process of trying to ram it into law, illuminate the corruption that inevitably infects what is supposed to be a crusade to purify politics: When constitutional rights are treated as negotiable, the negotiations corrupt the negotiators.
He describes how the new law is primarily designed to add regulations back onto corporate spending, "leaving unions largely free to continue spending on behalf of Democrats."
He summarizes:
Beware when the political class preens about protecting us from "special interests." The most powerful, persistent and anti-constitutional interest is the political class. Bradley Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, says Disclose should stand for Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections.
Will also mentions the Court's latest blow against government over-regulation of political speech--it's decision to block aspects of Arizona's Clean Elections Law. The decision not only undermines the Arizona law, but likely puts a damper on efforts by some in Washington state to introduce public funding of elections.
Thoughts? Add Comment -
There are no comments for this entry yet.