Dems Dissing SCOTUS

It isn't hard to understand why Democrats are not thrilled with the court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, however it is difficult not to be taken aback by how little respect the Democrats have publicly shown for the Court's decision, or, for that matter, the First Amendment.

Democrats, it seems, are not so liberal when it comes to interpreting the First Amendment.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, publicly suggested that Democrats are openly considering various ways that they can "blunt the impact" of the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which freed up corporations and labor unions to spend money on political campaigns. Van Hollen explained that "we're (presumably we refers to Democrats) looking at ways, for example, to require shareholder approval before a company can run an ad, to require that the CEO of the company get on the air and say, 'I'm the CEO of X Corporation, and I approve this ad,'" Van Hollen said on MSNBC Friday. Political candidates and committees are required to include similar lines in their ads.

Representative Van Hollen and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) freely admitted on Thursday, the day the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, that they would attempt to counter the Court's decision with legislation, but Van Hollen's comments strike a startlingly unthoughtful, and consciously populist tone. Van Hollen told MSNBC that "it's a wake-up call to Americans across this country that it's a time to get angry and get involved." He suggested that the new laws they are considering could disqualify companies that take public assistance from running political ads and Van Hollen even went so far as to suggest that foreign owned subsidiaries of American companies might be prohibited from involving themselves in campaigns.

It is not hard to understand why Democrats might not be thrilled with the court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, however it is difficult not to be taken aback by how little respect the Democrats have publicly shown for the Court's decision, or, for that matter, the First Amendment. From President Obama on down to Chris Van Hollen, Democrats have openly balked at the idea of allowing corporations to involve themselves in the political process and suggested, quite publicly, that they should and will do everything in their power to ensure that those "greedy corporations" are not able to be politically involved.

At least in theory, Van Hollen’s suggestion that new legislation might mandate that a company should, like a candidate, have to explain that it approved the message it is funding and sponsoring seems understandable. Accountability is important. However, a key portion of Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United focused on the fact that the distinction between corporations in general and media corporations in particular is untenable.  What is a media company?  Does Facebook count?  What about Paramount Pictures?  Should the CEO of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal have to insert language into the bottom of every editorial?  The answer to all of these questions is clearly no.

From here, Congressman Van Hollen’s suggestions, like requiring shareholder approval or attempting to limit foreign owned subsidiaries from involving themselves in elections only get more preposterous and, were they ever enacted into law, would represent overtly calculated measures to obstruct corporations and unions from speaking at all. Even more interesting, the argument floated for limiting speech by those like Congressman Van Hollen lacks any reference to the First Amendment and simply skips to the argument that “businesses should not be able to speak… Get angry America!” This line of argumentation represents a pathetic and offensively overt attempt by some Democrats to curtail the First Amendment not because there is a good reason to do so but rather because some Democrats are concerned that corporate free speech will harm their electoral efforts. It is one thing to disagree with the Court’s ruling on constitutional grounds, however it is quite another to ignore the constitutional question entirely and legislate to further a calculated political interest. Such legislation would be uncharacteristically shameless, even for members of Congress.