|
To go to the Free Speech index page,
click here.
To view or download a PDF version of this
letter, click
here.
June 25, 2012
RE: S. J. Res. 29
Dear Senator:
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the
federation of state right-to-life organizations, urges
you to oppose S. J. Res. 29, a proposed constitutional
amendment that would cut the heart out of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. NRLC reserves the
right to include any roll call on S. J. Res. 29 in our
scorecard of key roll calls of the 112th Congress.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights
provides in part that “Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .”
While the First Amendment applies broadly, first and
foremost it was intended to provide absolute protection
for the right to speak freely about those who hold or
seek political power.
It is precisely that form of speech –
speech about those who hold or seek offices of power in
government, at the Federal or state level – that is
targeted by S. J. Res. 29. Under the proposal, Congress
would be granted virtually unlimited power to regulate
and ration speech about those who hold or seek federal
office, including both congressional and executive
offices. This power would extend to “the raising and
spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect
to Federal elections,” including (but not limited to)
“the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in
support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”
S. J. Res. 29 would grant to state
officeholders an equivalent power to regulate spending
“made by, in support of, or in opposition to” state
candidates – legislative, executive, or judicial.
It is predictable that this language will
be construed to encompass not only any money spent for
overt appeals to elect or defeat “candidates,” but also
to disseminate any speech that criticizes “candidates”
or that portrays their actions or positions in a light
that they find unflattering. There is no exemption for
the “institutional” news media, or for any medium of
communication. The power to regulate and ration
political speech would extend to every mode of
communication – print, electronic, broadcast, internet,
etc.
The power to regulate and ration would
also extend to “in kind equivalents,” which could
include volunteer labor, including donations of time and
talent by professionals and celebrities.
“Candidates” will, of course, include all
current office holders. Incumbent office holders
frequently vote on matters of public controversy, and if
S. J. Res. 29 were part of the Constitution, it is
predictable that incumbent office holders will employ
the power granted to inhibit or punish those who
criticize them – partly if the criticisms are reaching
an audience of any appreciable size. Among the many
incumbent-protection-racket proposals that have been put
forth under the banner of “campaign finance reform,”
this proposed constitutional amendment is the most
ambitious power grab – a naked attempt to permanently
empower the political patrician class to substantially
insulate its members from criticism by and
accountability to the plebeians.
Perhaps a lone speaker standing on a
stool in the park, upbraiding the local congressman for
a recent vote, could remain outside the scope of the
restrictions that would flow from S. J. Res. 29 – but if
he first went to a local copy shop to buy some leaflets
to draw listeners to his presentation, he could no
longer rely on the protection of the First Amendment.
His “expenditure” would be deemed permissible, or
criminal, solely at the pleasure of those who already
hold the reins of power.
One other thing is predictable: If S. J.
Res. 29 were part of the Constitution, the sweeping
powers it grants to those who hold political office
would, in time, be employed with particular ruthlessness
towards individuals or groups who advance causes that
are out of favor with important political elites – as
has already occurred in some so-called “liberal
democracies.”
Because NRLC believes that S. J. Res. 29
would have a crippling effect on the ability of the
National Right to Life Committee to continue to
effectively advocate on behalf of members of the human
family who cannot speak on their own behalf – unborn
children, and the medically dependant and disabled –
NRLC strongly opposes this measure. In the NRLC
scorecard of key roll calls of the 112th Congress, a
vote for S. J. Res. 29 will be accurately characterized
as a vote to empower elected lawmakers, federal and
state, to restrict and punish speech that is critical of
their votes and positions on public policy issues.
NRLC urges you to reject the frontal
assault on the First Amendment embodied in S. J. Res.
29.
Sincerely,
Carol Tobias
President
David N. O’Steen, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
(202) 626-8820
|
