What John Edwards, Super PACs and Citizens United have in Common
Monday, May 21, 2012
Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Expert
Essentially, the case of United States v. John Edwards as played out in the courtroom and the media represents the worst and best of our society. We have, on the one hand, the disgraced political superstar and, on the other hand, a media and judicial system that rooted out a potential misapplication of campaign funds. I am not making any comment on the gentleman's actions or whether he committed any kind of wrongdoing. I do think this case should be held out as an example of how our system works and why we should have faith in it.
As you readers may or may not have noticed, the words “Super PAC” are the buzz words most often used in this election cycle. This, of course, is due to the mass amounts of capital that have flowed into Political Action Committees and is otherwise part of our democratic process sourced from corporations. While there have always been donations made to causes and candidates, whats different now is the fallout from a Supreme Court case dated January 21, 2010 called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The central question in that case was whether political speech could be suppressed based simply on who was paying for it. After lengthy evaluation the Supreme Court concluded that corporate political speech can be regulated through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it cannot be silenced altogether. No matter what side of this issue you fall on, the simple fact is that the freedom of speech is a central provision of our Constitution. To permit the government any kind of authority to silence a person or groups of people simply because their voice might be too loud or advocate for an unpopular viewpoint is a power toxic to democracy as we know it.
Even if this is the first you have heard of this case there are two things probably jumping into your mind. The first may be, “well sure, the first amendment says everyone has a right to make themselves heard whether that view point is popular or not.” The second might be, “corporations have no business in steering elections.”
Importantly, the way this is supposed to work is that individuals or groups of people are allowed to engage in political speech advocating for issues, directly support candidates or directly challenge candidates. They are not, however, supposed to work in coordination with a campaign that would make the speaker an extension of the campaign. While this may be a fine line, it is also distinct definition of legal versus illegal action. It strikes a compromise between allowing people, and groups of people, to exercise their freedom of speech while also preventing the illegal steering of elections for the economic gain of corporations.
As the justices refernced in Citizen's United, should the Sierra Club be banned from running ads about the importance of protecting our national parks and about how a particular candidate supports drilling for oil or establishing pipelines where they shouldn't be? Should the National Rifle Association be prevented from buying commercial time on Youtube? Should Pratt and Whitney be told they cannot extol the virtues of renewable energy technologies through a website targeted to voters? Our country was founded on the principle that speech is free and we have never tolerated censorship.
If you want proof that the freedom of speech works, just look at how well developed our media is. We have radio, print, web based and television journalism that investigates all facets of the lives of public figures. To think that a corporation or a candidate could somehow get away with illicit coordination and election steering does a disservice to the intelligence of our citizens and the strength of our media. If you want to know what happens when politicians cross the line, or even come close, just ask John Edwards.
Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney with the firm of Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski in Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected] or through the firm's website at www.gskandglaw.com
Related Articles
- Leonardo Angiulo: Body Language in Court
- Using Social Media as Evidence in Court
- What to do if a Subpoena Arrives at Your Door
- How to Deal With a Tricky Custody Situation
- Court Budget Cuts Hurt Central Mass. Business
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It