SUPREME COURT ALLOWS CORPORATIONS TO EXERCISE ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE WON’T PROVIDE PRESS CREDENTIALS TO THE ORGAN
In a five-to-four decision rendered this week, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that any restrictions made to prohibit a corporation from exercising its first amendment right to fund or utilize any other political activity are unconstitutional. The case was titled Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission. It overturned two prior precedents that had upheld such restraints. In the majority were the conservative appointees Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and then by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
This is certainly a blow to those who advocate election reform via the method of campaign finance. From now on, the rules have changed, but it doesn’t mean the little man can’t fight the machine. Considering that in the last election our president raised approximately $800 million from the Internet, I’m not all that bent out of shape over this.
When you think about this, most corporations are in the business to make a profit and taking sides in an election could cost them consumers and sales. The forces of the marketplace will rule to a certain degree. I know that I exercise my choices in select cases when I can. For instance, I don’t drink beer very often, but I won’t buy Coors because I can’t handle their political agenda. The same goes for Welch’s grape products. Their owner is Robert Welch, who founded the John Birch Society. You can extrapolate this even further, if you wish. Being Jewish, I won’t buy a German car.
What does worry me, however, is that this decision could be utilized to stem competition between companies. Despite all the hoopla about the myth that we live in a capitalist society, which supposedly breeds competition in the marketplace, companies want monopolies and want to stifle competition. Here is where they can utilize their resources in a negative manner.
The other problem with this decision is the overturning of precedent by the Supreme Court. Conservative judges are supposed to follow stare decicis (Latin for “to stand by that which is decided”) and not make new law. How many times have we seen conservatives clamor over their objections to an appointment of an activist judge and additionally denounce the Judiciary Committee for making rulings that set new precedents? In this instance, the conservatives set new precedents by overturning past decisions. It’s pure hypocrisy.
As to the second part of this article: The Organ, and me as its journalistic maven, will be testing a principle via the courts that my First Amendment rights have been violated .
Here’s the scoop. Last December, I met with Senator Jim Brochin, who is my senator from the 42nd District. He agreed to allow me access to him during this legislative session by doing recorded interviews that would have been podcast on the Organ. In addition to Senator Brochin, I expected to conduct myriad interviews with legislative leaders and others who could opine about the current legislative session. After securing his consent, I applied for press credentials with the General Services Administration. After being jerked around for close to two months, the governor’s press office has denied my request .
The message that I was turned down came from Senator Brochin’s office via an email from one of his office staff. They were informed by the governor’s press office that the Organ did not sufficiently cover state issues and that--believe it or not--granting of credentials posed some kind of security risk, because if they gave me permission then other bloggers would ascend on Annapolis and make the legislators' lives less secure. Basically, I call it censorship and arrogance.
The Organ has retained the services of University of Baltimore law professor Eric Eaton, who teaches First Amendment law and was a former journalist. We are filing suit against the governor’s Office of Communications and the General Services Administration. There is case law that supports our position. Bloggers have First Amendment rights. I will keep all of you updated.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
