Attempting to Single Out Business in Stifling Free Speech (or When It’s So Egregious, I Just Can’t Think of a Witty Headline)
Once upon a time, an emperor and his aides were duped by swindlers into believing they had woven beautiful fabric and sewn it into a suit of clothes from thin air for which the emperor was willing to pay handsomely.
The emperor proudly donned the nonexistent clothing and paraded through the city, accompanied by his yes-men aides, all of whom were too intimidated, insecure, or unquestioning to doubt the existence of the emperor’s new suit of clothes.
But, a child finally cried out, “The emperor has no clothes!” (“Besides”, the child silently thought, “unions and their high-labor-cost demands long ago drove most weaving and clothing manufacturing offshore.”)
And, as the emperor and his aides began to see that the crowd was listening to the child, a new law was introduced to prevent shouts of exclamation during parade processions.
However, the law would apply only to those who questioned the existence of the emperor’s clothing or the judgment of his aides. Those who wished to shout praise and admiration for the nonexistent clothing were carved out of the new law, which was titled the “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act,” H.R. 5175.
Otherwise known as the DISCLOSE Act, introduced by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and the immediate past chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Chuck Schumer, the legislation presents a conundrum of which is the more egregious thing of these two:
- that it endangers the right of free speech as enumerated in the Constitution by flying in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in which the Court struck down a blanket government prohibition on corporate political speech and actually expands the very law the Court found unconstitutional; or,
- that it specifically and methodically targets businesses and corporations by carving out labor unions and—in a development just today—huge, well-established groups with whom deals have reportedly been cut like the National Rifle Association (which points to just how far bill’s sponsors will go in the name of stifling the political voice of business).
The DISCLOSE Act, is dangerous to associations, chambers of commerce, and businesses because, if enacted into law, this legislation:
- Places onerous restrictions on corporate free speech and their representative associations while ignoring organized labor’s immense political influence
- Threatens to stifle trade associations’ First Amendment freedoms that give voice to their members views in the legislative and political process
- Upends Congress’ longstanding tradition of treating corporations and unions in parallel fashion, with similar burdens on each
- Is alarmingly blatant preferential treatment of unions and is unnecessary since unions already possess considerable political clout – Unions and their PACs claim to have spent $450 million in the 2008 presidential race; two unions have already vowed to spend more than $100 million to “protect the incumbency” in the 2010 midterms
But at least we can blog about the bill and its sponsors…can’t we? It’s a free country, right? Well, for now, at least. Brad Peck with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce writes in his ChamberPost blog that “This bill is so loosely crafted that it’s an absolute train wreck that not only threatens free speech in America, but could indirectly impact the current free exercise of speech bloggers enjoy.”
Senator Schumer has commented directly on the targeted nature of the DISCLOSE Act,
saying the bill: “will make [corporations] think twice” before attempting to influence election outcomes, and that this “deterrent effect should not be underestimated.”
The legislation, H.R. 5175, could be considered in the House as early as THIS Thursday. Then, it would be sent back to the Senate, where a cloture vote would be taken to determine whether it will be debated by the full Senate. View Congress’ summary of the bill here.
What can you do? Start by clicking here to contact Congress now to urge them to reject this legislation.
And for now, it’s legal to shout that the “emperor has no clothes.”
PS: If anyone chooses to buy him some real clothes, please do so at a Lubbock Chamber member retailer).
