 |
Only who can prevent forest fires? |
Feedback? E-mail us.
Real-time updates of recently viewed articles on the site.
Be considerate of others' property
"Back to the '80s" rocks the Egyptian Theatre
Frank Simek | Northern Star
Voters deserve the right to be informed through political media
Last updated on 10/01/2009 at 11:03 p.m.
Recently, the Supreme Court was buzzing as arguments continued in the case of Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission. The case has brought up some interesting questions about businesses that fund political advocacy ads. It also brings to light the fundamental rights issue of free speech.
Page one in the opening statement of the appellant’s brief for this case states “This constitutional injunction [restricting freedom of speech] evidently was not in the forefront of Congress’s mind when it enacted BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act], a statute that imposes sweeping restrictions on core political speech.”
The BCRA restricts corporations from funding political advocacy ads that air within 30 days prior to a presidential primary or 60 days prior to a general election.
The controversy specifically targets a documentary entitled “Hillary: The Movie.” The appellants in the case are attempting to dismantle the FEC’s claim that the movie falls in the category of a political advocacy advertisement.
Page six in the statement of the appellant’s brief states “Although Senator Clinton’s candidacy was the backdrop for the 90-minute documentary, neither the movie’s narrator nor any of the individuals interviewed during the movie expressly advocated her election or defeat as
President. The movie instead presents a critical assessment of Senator Clinton’s record as a U.S. Senator and as First Lady in order to educate viewers about her political background.”
In the first line of the aforementioned, the word advocating is defined as “to plead in favor of.”
At no time throughout the movie was any individual pleading in favor of or against Clinton. Enumerating facts is quite different from making a plea. Due to the fact that none of the individuals in the movie had ever advocated for or against the presidential candidate, the burden of restrictions the FEC would like to impose upon the movie is inadmissible.
The fact that the movie is controversial and happens to be about a presidential candidate does not mean that it should be inaccessible. Voting citizens have a right to be informed. It seems that the government believes United States voters are not smart enough to decipher fact from fiction.
As American citizens, we have a right to be informed, whether it is 30 days or two days prior to the time we cast our votes. It should be the people’s choice as educated, informed citizens to have the freedom to view whatever media they choose and base their decisions upon whatever information they find pertinent to the candidate. Are the effects of the advertisement of the movie more influential than the daily news that flashes across our television screens?
News media, whether it be televised, spoken through our radios or written in an online blog, is much more accessible and influential than any 90-minute documentary could ever be. So how does the BCRA differentiate this movie from news media coverage of candidates?
Quite simply, it doesn’t.
Another aspect of the case lies within the rights of businesses to fund political advocacy ads.
“Where do we draw that line between individuals and corporations?” asked Bradley McDonald, professor of Operations Management and Information Systems. “There is a lot of precedent in the Supreme Court that corporations are essentially citizens under the law. It seems to me, if you’re going to grant them most constitutional rights, you grant them the right of free speech.”
McDonald goes on to look at the issue from the shareholders perspective to better understand why the individual shareholder would be supportive of corporate advocacy funding.
“I assume that GE would only be advocating those positions that are going to be best for GE, and isn’t that what I want as a shareholder? And if I don’t like it, then maybe I shouldn’t be a shareholder of GE,” McDonald said.
There is no debate over the significant influence that a business can have by funding a political candidate, but it is up to the shareholders to invest in that business, it is up to the voters to construe fact from fiction, and it is up to a candidate’s conduct to win an election.
» Next Opinion Article: Reader says the fact that MAP funding was promised and now cut is the big problem
