Will Wilkinson puts it better than I can…

The anguished cries of left-leaning folk over the Citizens United ruling seem to me to be emanating from an alternate universe, so bizarre are they. This was a case about whether the state can suppress the distribution of an unflattering documentary about a powerful political candidate produced by a small group of private citizens. The crazy thing to me is that anyone ever thought that such a rule was not in blatant violation of the First Amendment. The extra-crazy thing is that four Supreme Court justices evidently think this kind of state censorship of political speech is hunky dory. I’m going to chalk up some of the freakout to this week’s spectacular pileup of disasters for progressives. Sorry guys. I know it’s been rough. But I have to say I was taken aback by the vehemence with which people I like and admire have insisted that the state must selectively silence political speech. I didn’t realize that this was such a profound point of disagreement. As I see it, these regulations have accomplished very little other than to protect the interests of powerful, entrenched incumbent politicians against public criticism.

I’m tempted to conclude that the divide between progressives and ACLU-style civil libertarians on this issue has to do with differences in our conceptions of the relationship between equality of democratic voice and the legitimacy of democratic elections. But I’m not sure that’s right. I suspect the real issue is more an empirical one about the actual balance of power with or without this kind of regulation. I see this ruling as vindicating the importance of equality of voice by protecting the rights of individuals and associations to speak out on behalf of their interests and values. Progressives clearly see the ruling primarily as some kind of corporate-empowerment initiative. But you can’t really take on Big Agra or Wall Street unless you can organize to speak out against the Chuck Grassleys and Chuck Schumers when it really counts.

Tim Lee and Matt Welch also make a lot of sense.

Update: Matt continues, and Andrew rounds up others.

  1. @kevinista says:

    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

  2. Metavirus says:

    see running commentary on this topic in comments here: http://www.librarygrape.com/2010/01/corporations-…

  3. Metavirus says:

    awesome quote: "What we have here is a wedding in hell. The groom is bullshit and the bride is money. The offspring are of quid pro quo corruption." http://brainspank.org/wordpress/?p=732

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors