Move to Amend wants to limit your freedom of speech
By | Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Catch-All, Politics

Earlier this month, Charlottesville-based author and activist David Swanson posted an article on the web site of Move to Amend (also known as MovetoAmend.org) explaining that organization’s agenda, which is to amend the U.S. Constitution to circumscribe the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Move to Amend is floating several proposals, largely designed to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which ruled that individuals do not lose their free speech rights simply by banding together for a common purpose as an incorporated entity. The Citizens United decision has been gaining a lot of attention in this election year because of the activities of so-called “Super PACs” supporting and opposing various presidential campaigns. (Stephen Colbert has been making a new career out of this.)

In his article, Swanson argues that corporations should not enjoy the same freedom of speech as individuals:

The U.S. Constitution never gave any rights or personhood to corporations or transformed money into speech. It ought not to be necessary to amend a document to, in effect, point out that the sky is blue and up is not down. If the Supreme Court rules that Goldman Sachs can send legislation directly to the White House and cut out the congressional middleman, will we have to amend the Constitution to remove the Goldman Sachs branch of government? Where will this end?

The Constitution also never gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn every law passed by Congress. In fact, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to set exceptions and regulations on what types of cases the Supreme Court can take. So, Congress could take some types of cases away, although it might have to be a great many.

There are many things wrong with amending the Constitution to take away liberties rather than enhance them. The last amendment to diminish liberty, the 18th, was a tremendous failure and was repealed within 15 years.

Some of the proposals even fail on their own terms. For example, the proposals include a “news media” exemption for the ban on corporate speech. What happens if George Soros or the Koch brothers decide to buy a newspaper or TV network?

Flaws and fright aside, I’m more interested in the utter hypocrisy of Swanson and his allies who want to eliminate freedom of speech for incorporated organizations.

It turns out the Move to Amend is a project of the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, Inc.

That’s right: Move to Amend is sponsored by a corporation.

Indeed, several of the partner organizations listed by the Orwellian-named Liberty Tree are also corporations:

The Alliance for Democracy, Inc.
Common Cause
Corporate Ethics International
Institute for Policy Studies
National Organization for Women, Inc.

I could go on (and on), but you get the picture.

Indeed, even the local organization with which Swanson is most closely associated, the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice, is registered with the IRS as a corporation (albeit one with a very small income).

All of these organizations have and offer opinions on public policy — they all seem to have a very clear position on what should be the public policy with regard to campaign finance — yet they are organized as corporations, which Swanson argues should not have the ability to express their views on public policy. (At its narrowest form, Move to Amend’s argument is that corporations should not be able to express their views with regard to candidates for public office, who end up making the public policies that these corporations advocate for or against.)

My question for Swanson and his colleagues with Move to Amend: Do you really want to limit the freedom of speech of all these organizations in your alliance? Do you want to put gaffer’s tape across the mouths of these scions of the progressive movement?

I’m eager to hear the answer.


Tags:

Contribute for Conservatism!

Share this post

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed
  • Share this post on Delicious
  • StumbleUpon this post
  • Share this post on Digg
  • Tweet about this post
  • Share this post on Mixx
  • Share this post on Technorati
  • Share this post on Facebook
  • Share this post on NewsVine
  • Share this post on Reddit
  • Share this post on Google
  • Share this post on LinkedIn

About the author

Rick Sincere

Rick Sincere, twice a candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, blogs about politics and culture from Charlottesville. He is the author of two books on U.S. policy toward Africa and has contributed articles to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Examiner, among other publications. Follow him on Twitter at @rick_sincere.

Comments

3 Responses to "Move to Amend wants to limit your freedom of speech"
  1. Jumping Jack January 27, 2012 09:30 am

    This is no surprise and could of easily saw it coming. This is why every conservative needs to read “The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)” The left has already mastered these techniques and few on the right have countered and are ready for the massive wave. This is directly traced back to their plan they used to take over Colorado. Many of us on this page have already read it. I can not emphasize how important this book it. It reads like a horror story. Obama has raised twice as much as the top Republican. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  2. Jumping Jack January 27, 2012 09:35 am

    Not to mention the folks in Colorado we successful in passing campaign caps on individual donations opening the door for their (as planned) 501(c)(4) and 527s to take over money and fundraising as supposed to the party. That’s what worries me about them coming after corporations.

  3. CPAC Kremlinology – Bearing Drift: Virginia's Conservative Voice January 30, 2012 21:17 pm

    [...] introduced by David Bossie of Citizens United, whose victory in the U.S. Supreme Court has led to a slough of proposals to amend the Constitution to limit freedom of [...]

Leave your response

Please take a moment to review our comment policy.