This week we have a Galactic Whopper from George Will in the Washington Post. His column is titled “Senate Democrats Extremism on Display.” It contends that the effort by Senate Democrats to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision by a proposed constitutional amendment constitutes true extremism – an effort to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. In fact, he claims the measure menaces “the constitution’s architecture of ordered liberty.”
There are, however, a few noteworthy problems with Will’s shrill and hysterical assertions. The proposed constitutional amendment deals with the ability of the government to regulate campaign contributions in general with the authority to prohibit contributions by corporations in particular. Far from being extremist, this viewpoint has been part of bipartisan (Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican) and mainstream political discourse for over a century. It was reflected in federal, state and local campaign regulations for decades. The notion that corporations enjoyed the same constitutional free speech rights as human beings did not exist for the first 220 years of our nation’s existence (until the Citizens United decision). Apparently, America was wildly extremist in its opposition to free speech for all that time but just didn’t recognize it.
Will provides specific allegations against the amendment to buttress his charge of extremism. Those are whoppers too. First, he accuses the Senate Democrats of attempting to do something never before done – amend the Bill of Rights. Now one can argue that the 14th Amendment de facto amended the Bill of Rights by extending its protection to African-Americans. But the more relevant point is that Senate Democrats are clearly trying to restore the meaning of the Bill of Rights to its pre-Citizens United interpretation. Using Will’s logic, if a future Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment so as to deny citizens the right to criticize federal legislation, and Senators proposed an amendment to restore the original meaning, these Senators would be extremists too – nefarious folks seeking to amend the Bill of Rights.
Then, Will protests that the proposed amendment would allow the prohibition of political contributions by non-profit issue-advocacy corporations, such as the Sierra Club, NARAL, and others. Somehow, he neglects to note these entities are already strictly regulated as regards their political activities – not because they are corporations but because they are non-profits. Because of their tax exempt status, they are prohibited from using most of their resources to impact elections and legislation.
Finally, Will insists on demonstrating his mindboggling ignorance of political history by asserting the proposed amendment will “surely serve incumbents’ interests” because they can enforce low limits on contributions to less well-known challengers. It appears Will is unaware that under the pre-Citizens United system a Republican challenger (Ronald Reagan) defeated an incumbent President (Jimmy Carter) and a Democratic challenger (Bill Clinton) defeated a Republican incumbent president (G.W.H. Bush). Nor has he apparently ever heard of term limits.
Finally, it is necessary for this author to observe that genuine extremism does exist in American politics. It may manifest itself in the efforts of armed militias to prevent federal officers from enforcing the law. And it may be seen in the systematic efforts of political parties to employ judicial usurpation of elections, gerrymandering, and voter suppression strategies to prevent American voters from choosing the candidates they prefer.
On these acts of extremism, Mr. Will is neither shrill nor hysterical. He is silent.
Bob Brownstein is Director of Policy and Research for Working Partnerships USA
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments