You know there’s trouble when the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association are in bed with each other.
Today, a three-judge federal appellate court will hear arguments from 84 plaintiffs and attorneys representing various federal commissions. At stake in what The Washington Time’s Phil Kent is calling “the omnibus lawsuit” is “nothing less than the future of political debate and the ability of American citizens to criticize the government.”
Our own dear Senator Feingold, who himself has over a million dollars in campaign cash bankrolled, co-authored the law that, as it stands now, bans issue ads 60 days from a general election and 30 days from a primary.
Deemed by many to be an incumbent-protection act, the more Orwellian stipulations of the law restrict the ability of any corporate or private interest group from making any comment on a race or referencing a federal candidate by name within the “red-zone” time period of the election.
The most problematic assertion with the entire package is its assumption that speech should be curtailed not because it is false, libelous or treasonous but rather because the ruling political class does not like the content of the speech.
It is widely anticipated, even assumed, that the court will strike down the most damning provisions of the bill. Such an action would certainly be an immediate victory for free-speech defenders across the political spectrum. But the fallout from a return to the status quo sets the groundwork for an insidious evolution of support for publicly financed campaigns.
Bottom line: No one has accused any particular political party or special-interest group of large-scale efforts to control the free will of the voting population. The NRA isn’t pasting attack ads in voting booths, and the Teamsters aren’t raiding the polling places of their membership. Each and every citizen still controls which box he or she checks; the decision is ultimately theirs.
As such, voters ultimately have the responsibility for filtering information.
Big loser: third-party candidates. Unless you can self-finance, being a small fish in a big pond without corporate support is not going to get you onto Capitol Hill.
* * *
Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments as to whether federal laws regarding racketeering and extortion, originally conceived to fight organized crime, can be applied to groups protesting the abortion issue.
While the case does not get to the issue of abortion’s constitutionality, abortion groups are seeking the ability to sue for damages of racketeering when pro-life groups disrupt the conduct of business at abortion clinics.
Originally brought by two abortion clinics, one of which is located in Milwaukee, the case intends to restrict the ability of protestors to involve themselves in the private business of others, splitting the hairs between what constitutes legal political activity and unlawful interference with others.
Bottom line: Free speech is free speech, and it should be as loud as ever. But keep your hands off of each other.
Big Loser: Violent, zealous activists on the one hand.
But opening up protest to litigation is a scary prospect. The line between what is “illegal” and what is “inconvenient” is awfully blurry. Where does the precedent end? Can I sue the almost daily protestors on Library Mall for disrupting my walk to the Herald each afternoon? If I own a business on State Street, can I sue marchers down the mall for the loss of business?
* * *
The Supreme Court also recently decided to hear arguments in a case levied against the University of Michigan by applicants who claim they were unfairly denied admission on the basis of their, well, their whiteness.
Bottom line: Look at their grades, not their face.
Big Loser: The concept of civil rights in this country.
Eric Cullen ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and history.
