By George Will
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Bernie Sanders, greedy for power to punish people he
considers greedy, has occasioned 2016’s best joke (reported in Bloomberg Businessweek): “In the Bernie
Sanders drinking game, every time he mentions a free government program, you
drink someone else’s beer.” But neither Sanders’s nor Hillary Clinton’s
hostility to the First Amendment is amusing.
Both have voted to do something never done before — make
the Bill of Rights less protective. They favor amending the First Amendment to
permit government regulation of political campaign speech. Hence they embrace
progressivism’s logic, as it has been explained separately, and disapprovingly,
by two eminent economists, Ronald Coase and Aaron Director:
There is no reason the regulatory, redistributive state
should distinguish between various markets. So, government that is competent
and duty-bound to regulate markets for goods and services to promote social
justice is competent and duty-bound to regulate the marketplace of ideas for
the same purpose.
Sanders and Clinton detest the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which they say
their court nominees will promise to reverse. It held that unions and
corporations — especially incorporated advocacy groups, from the National Rifle
Association to the Sierra Club — can engage in unregulated spending on
political advocacy that is not coordinated with candidates or campaigns. The
decision simply recognized that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment
rights when they come together in incorporated entities to magnify their voices
by speaking collectively.
Opposition to Citizens
United is frequently distilled into the slogan that “corporations are not
people,” to which Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) adds this example of
progressive insight: “People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They
get sick. They cry. They dance. They live. They love. And they die.” And a few
teach at Harvard Law School, as Warren was able to do only because Harvard did
not die: It is descended from the first corporation chartered in colonial
America.
Surely she learned in law school something she can
relearn by reading “Are Corporations People?” in National Affairs quarterly by Carson Holloway of the University of
Nebraska, Omaha. The concept of corporate personhood, he says, is not an
invention of today’s conservatives. It derives from English common law and is
“deeply rooted in our legal and constitutional tradition.”
William Blackstone, the English jurist who richly
influenced America’s Founders, said corporations are “artificial persons”
created to encourage socially useful cooperation among individuals and are
accorded certain rights so that they can hold property and have lives,
identities and missions that span multiple generations. Early in America’s
history, many for-profit corporations were less important than the nonprofit
educational and religious corporations that still produce America’s robust
civil society of freely cooperating citizens.
If corporations had no rights of personhood, they would
have no constitutional protections against, for example, the arbitrary search
and seizure by government of their property without just compensation. And
there would be no principled reason for denying the right of free speech (the
First Amendment does not use the word “person” in guaranteeing it) to
for-profit (e.g., the New York Times)
or nonprofit (e.g., the NAACP) corporations.
In his attack on the Bill of Rights, Sanders voted to
exempt for-profit media corporations from government regulation of corporate
speech. Why? Because such corporations, alone among for-profit and nonprofit
corporations, are uniquely altruistic and disinterested? Please.
In 2007, in a Cato Institute lecture, Judge Janice Rogers
Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit warned us: People who
are eager to weaken protection of private property in order to enable
government to redistribute wealth will also want to weaken constitutional
protections of free speech in order to empower government to redistribute
ideas.
Since then, college campuses have been responsive to
people eager to regulate what others say, hear, and see. Now, in the name of
campaign-finance reform, progressives like Sanders and Clinton want to expand
government’s regulatory reach to political speech.
Both are ardent for equality and, as Brown foresaw, the
argument for economic equality easily becomes an argument for equalizing
political influence. The argument is: Government regulates or seizes property
in the name of equity, so why not also, for the same reason, regulate the
quantity, content, and timing of speech intended to “influence elections”?
Progressives, with their collectivist itch, are ever
eager to break private institutions to the saddle of the state, and to fill
private spaces with regulations. Do they consider government uniquely
altruistic and disinterested? Please.
No comments:
Post a Comment