1) As conceived by the framers of the Constitution free speech means individual persons’ [human beings] right to be able to speak one’s mind without fear of interference or reprisal by the government. There is little doubt that this is their clear intention. Everything that follows must follow logically from that premise and nothing else. Understanding and protecting this right legitimately allows both positive and negative inferences which can be directly drawn from the basic right – that is what is protected and what is disallowed in order to protect the positive intent of the 1st Amendment.
2) Throughout our history, having no other options within our immediate control, the average citizen’s “free speech” is almost entirely limited in practice to being heard by those who are literally close enough to hear our voices. The wealthy on the other hand are able reach out to the entire nation and into the pockets of our representatives through the application of unlimited funds not available to the average citizen. This speech at least implies the following understandings:
3) Free speech as it was intended is not tied to any economic understanding involving the cost of determining the content of and/or delivering the speech. That concept is not in the Constitution. This is, in fact, “bought” speech in the economic sense of purchasing power, and has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment protection. While this is not the common understanding of this issue, it is a reasonable understanding of the Constitution itself freed from case law and opinion.
4) That is, the Constitution does not guarantee a right to spend money in either unlimited or unregulated ways –
[a] not by individuals and
[b] not by corporations.
This is the key point to understand that most people and organizations miss. We need to uncouple the concept of money in relationship to free speech altogether. Once this step is taken, the regulation of campaign finance, campaign ads, centralized media control,...all the issues surrounding free speech other than a citizen's right can be controled through legislation.
5) If anything, the First Amendment clearly implies that money should not be allowed to have more influence on public opinion or our representatives than a citizen’s right to speak his mind freely. It is, after all, the citizens who vote, not corporations.
6) Extending free speech to protect the public from Corporate Media Control
The next understanding requires an historical perspective: At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were no means of mass communication whereby one person or group could significantly control the means by which speech was communicated and therefore the ability to control the content of what is communicated [censorship]. This being the case, our founders also did not see the possibility of any entity other than government with its powers of enforcement which could make censorship a danger.
This remained substantially true until the last few decades as corporate interests began to buy and merge the media in all of its current forms – print, analog, telecommunications transmitted by wire, wireless or optical fiber, phone networks, broadcast, cable, broadband, satellite and now the Internet itself…things unimagined and yet to come... Centralization of ownership makes it possible for a mere handful of companies `
[a] to write and produce and
[b] therefore control the program content and context,
[c] choose the personalities who convey the information and the point of
. view they convey and
[d] own or control the communication link which carries the content.
That's too much power. Corporations now have the dangerous ability to control every aspect of the information through which the public is informed so completely that they are able to determine the basis on which public opinion and policy are formed. In this light, the definitions regarding theFirst Amendment need to be revised so that no individual or entity of any kind be allowed to have sufficient control over the content or delivery of speech in any venue to become a threat to the foundations of our democracy.
7) Corporate Personhood
The next issue revolves around the definition of corporate “personhood.” Since the founding of our nation, legislation has defined corporations as "persons" for rational and necessary business reasons concerning such issues as the right to sue and to be sued, to enter into contracts, own property, etc. Over time, laws and court opinions have extended the definitions. For instance, it has been argued that the “due process” protections of the 14th Amendment apply to corporations. We do not agree. That is a matter of opinion derived from definitions determined by law and opinion, not the Constitution itself. It uses a contrived distortion of the First Amendment in order to apply the 14th Amendment to corporations.
At the same time it should be understood that there have always been limits to the recognition of the personhood of corporations. For instance, the courts have always acknowledged that corporations cannot marry, vote or hold public office. [Sometimes the Courts arrive at reasonable conclusions. On the other hand, some people who work for large corporations feel like they are married to them.] Thus, it is already established that the personhood of a corporation is not absolute or without legal limits. It is further established that these limits can be established and changed by law and thus supersede any and all opinions of the court. Therefore, the law can and must state that corporate personhood shall not extend to the right of free speech or to enjoy constitutional protection.
8) Corporate free speech: In the recent Supreme Court Decision in the Citizens United case the “personal right of free speech” was specifically extended to corporations changing over a century of law and opinion. The effect of this decision is to open the floodgates allowing unlimited corporate funds to be channeled into political campaigns in every form:
[a] campaign contributions,
[b] the purchase of advertisements in support or opposition to political
. campaigns and issues,
[c] to block campaign reforms limiting the amount of contributions and
[d] public financing of elections.
The laws and court opinions are used by big money interests are not protected by the 1st or 14th Amendments.
9) Free speech necessitates campaign finance reforms: The legal and judicial linkage between “corporate” and “bought” speech on the one hand and the constitutionally protected “free speech” on the other have been used to block limitation on that speech. This linkage has been used synergistically to block campaign finance reform including the public financing of elections. Thus, corporations are able to use unlimited ownership and/or funds to influence how people vote in elections on the front end of our democratic process and over how the candidates vote on the back end – and to write this off as business expenses.
10) These redefinitions would allow legislation to totally forbid any political contributions from individuals or corporations. It would allow the definition of any monetary or other inducement offered to and/or accepted by a candidate or incumbent to be on its face the bribe and a criminal act.
11) Since these reforms would eliminate virtually all the corrupting influence of big money which currently finance our election processes, the legislation would need to include at least an outline of new procedures which allow the electoral process and flow of information to be accomplished with the least possible expenditure of money and in ways that guarantee fairness. See our discussion of the Internet per se and its use through a national elections website.
We assert that all of the above issues can be resolved by one simple piece of Congressional legislation stating clearly that the legal definition of corporate personhood shall not apply to the right of free speech and further to break the link between speech and money declaring the right of free speech does not allow either individual or corporations to spend unlimited and unregulated money. These legal definitions will again allow regulation and limitation of both “corporate” and “bought” speech and open the way for meaningful public participation and funding of elections[1] and protections for access to the media.
[1] Note that we have not included the freedom of the Internet in this presentation, but that we feel that it is closely associated with free speech and should be given prompt attention following the passage of this legislation.
Contact us: wedonthavefreespeech@outlook.com
p.s. If
you want to read or share our complete introductory series and other blog posts
about this and other issues, see our Annotated Table of Contents below. Or if you have questions or comments,
email us.
Annotated Table of Contents
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/sign-the-pledge-big-out?source=c.em&r_by=14960502
Insist candidates vote for a single act of Congress
stating: “There is no relationship between speech and money stated or implied
in the US Constitution and therefore no such relationship exists” as the basis
of further reforms to limit the abuses of Big Money interests.
Best summary of the proposed “Recover our Democracy Act;”
its Constitutional basis; removing purported legal objections, public financing
of elections, limits on campaign contributions, public funding of federal
elections, preprogrammed campaign website, redefining a bribe and much more
Cut and paste text to share by electronic media to spread
the word on our plan
Our appointment being ignored while lobbyists immediately enter
our Congressman’s office
Being on the outside: Explaining the meaning of our logo…the
corrupting influence of Big Money
Political contributions, Citizens United Supreme Court
Decision, “We don’t
have free speech. We can’t afford it,” our
solution is an act of Congress,
“Backdoor money in politics, quid pro quo, “anything of material value
offered or given to, or received and accepted by any candidate, incumbent or
governmental employee under any circumstance shall be defined as a bribe,” penalties defined for candidates and government
employees.
Our early commentaries: Free speech is fundamental to
democracy, different views, uses and limitations of free speech, public
financing of elections, fair and balanced media coverage
Original free speech: freedom to speak our mind, power
to “buy” both the “content” and the “delivery” of “free” speech, "personhood" of corporations,
Supreme Court and Citizens United,
ownership of the media, points of view, political advertising, educational content,
bought speech,…
Trickle down economics, tax reductions, income disparity,
deregulation, power by changing belief systems, abuses, distortions and lies, is
it regulation or just bad regulation?, affording governmental programs and high
taxes, millennia of struggle by the rich to retain control vs. democracy,
85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed
Citizens United
Humans speaking their mind
without fear, means of extending the reach of speech [meida], bought speech,
literally “free” speech decoupled from money, power of the media, corporate personhood,
limitations of free speech, campaigns and political speech, alternative communications
for elections: public financing, freedom of the Internet….
Figures on campaign
contributions given by largest lobbying corporations [6+ years old = pre Supepr
PACs]
One of our earliest posts:We don't have free speech
that has meaningful access to our own representatives. Our logo, our slogan, our chants, young adults, spreading
the word on the Internet, Obama’s election, making videos,
Largely unedited, free associated ideas on framing the legislation
Free public website designed
and formatted to conduct campaigns for office and public issues , FEC provided
bank account, and credit cards , campaign accounting system and
regulations, partial design specifications, real time public review access…
…the most logical
public space to allow the free flow of information on issues of public interest
“understanding the
power of corporations as a means of amassing power and money, the founding
fathers originally rejected the existence of corporations,” corporations
are not mentioned in the Constitution and have no protected rights; therefore,
Congress may limit or abolish corporations as deemed necessary for the public
good. Growth of corporate power, personhood of corporations and personal rights
attributed to corporations , theory of 14th amendment [due process]
applies to corporations,
No comments:
Post a Comment