Supreme Court Gives Free Speech to Corporations…
Temporarily

For years corporations were treated like second-class citizens stripped of their First Amendment rights. When congressmen and presidents sought to punish, regulate or restrict them, corporations couldn't tell Americans what was being done, why it was wrong and how it would cost jobs and growth in their industry. They had to sit there and take it.

But now comes the long-awaited ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that both non-profit and for-profit entities, corporations and labor unions, may spend money during federal elections to both promote their causes and support or oppose candidates for office.

The Court decided that the First Amendment actually protects political speech – and protects such speech especially when it is most relevant: at election time. The ruling blows a gaping hole through the 2002 "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," also known as McCain-Feingold, and more accurately known as "The Incumbent Protection Act."

Now when Nancy Pelosi threatens legislative retribution on the health insurance industry if it doesn't back her health care plan, and when President Obama bashes banks for all of the problems that he and congress created, these industries can fight back.

But only temporarily, as this victory is not complete. There will be attempts to overturn it. In fact, they've already started.

One of the first attacks came from The New York Times' editorial board, which called the Court's action a "radical decision" that "strikes at the heart of democracy." The Times put out a clarion call for anti-corporate activists to "mobilize right away" and said "the real solution lies in getting the Court's ruling overturned."

Of course the Times is a corporation privy to full free speech rights under the First Amendment. Apparently the Gray Lady doesn't like the idea of other corporations having the same rights it enjoys – rights that it obviously deems exclusive and proprietary.

Writing the majority opinion for the Court, Justice Kennedy summed it up perfectly: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Kennedy's succinct eloquence is the only context in which an ugly law like McCain-Feingold makes sense. Power, in its purest, most corrupting form, is the driving force behind politicians' desire to muzzle the mouths of the citizenry – especially corporations, which are easily, and many times unfairly, demonized by populist crusaders.

In fact, the ink was barely dry on the SCOTUS parchment before Obama was tasking Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi with putting the gag back in the mouths of corporations and all Americans. (If you think getting a government-run health care bill passed is tough now, just imagine how brutal it will be when all can speak freely!)

And the Times is right that if President Obama gets the opportunity to replace another Justice, particularly one of the four reliable constructionists currently on the Court (Scalia and swing-vote Kennedy are both 73), it would only be a short matter of time before corporations and other Americans have their First Amendment rights stripped again.

Democratic leaders in congress are already exploring new ways to stifle corporate speech, including requiring corporations to obtain permission from their shareholders before they can fund political ads, and even prohibiting companies from deducting such political spending as a business expense on their taxes. Democratic Representatives Leonard Boswell (Iowa) and Donna Edwards (Maryland) have already proposed constitutional amendments to reverse the effect of the Court's ruling.

So while free speech advocates and corporations should celebrate this ruling, they must quickly sober up and brace themselves for the Left's return volley. This battle will only intensify over the coming decade.

In the book I authored last year titled Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech, I detailed why we could expect to see many attempts to silence free speech throughout the Obama administration.

Regrettably, this is happening as we speak. Obama's Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Julius Genachowski, is currently pushing to implement new "Net Neutrality" rules that would have the federal government manage and regulate online speech.

Obama and Genachowski are borrowing from the same talking points used by proponents of McCain-Feingold. They want us to believe that this is about "fairness" and "creating a level playing field." Incredibly, their argument is that government control is needed to guarantee an inventive, pioneering and limitless Internet.

So let us rejoice in this monumental victory for our First Amendment rights. Rejoice, but not sleep. The power-mad in congress and the White House won't tolerate dissent – not from corporations, not from citizens, not from anyone – as the President was so quick to tell us last week. ###