You are here
Citizens United and Conflicts of Interest Law
Saturday, January 23rd, 2010
Robert Wechsler
The Citizens
United
decision from the Supreme Court this week says that, for the
purpose of First Amendment free speech rights in a political context,
corporations are persons. Until now, they were considered fictional
persons, since they lack such things as arms, brains, and the right to
vote.
Will the majority's conclusions affect conflicts of interest law? Here's a conclusion from page 40, ending the decision's first section.
The first response that comes to mind is that the First Amendment right of the public to hear speech must be balanced against the public's right to have elected officials not be unduly influenced, either by others or by their own interests. However, on page 45, the court emphasizes that the First Amendment trumps concerns about influence on government officials.
According to an article in today's New York Times, Tom DeLay's lawyer is already arguing that the decision undermines the government's money laundering charges against his client. What's a little conflict compared with money laundering?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Will the majority's conclusions affect conflicts of interest law? Here's a conclusion from page 40, ending the decision's first section.
- When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal
law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what
distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control
thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to
think for ourselves.
The first response that comes to mind is that the First Amendment right of the public to hear speech must be balanced against the public's right to have elected officials not be unduly influenced, either by others or by their own interests. However, on page 45, the court emphasizes that the First Amendment trumps concerns about influence on government officials.
-
If elected officials succumb to improper influences from independent
expenditures; if they surrender their best judgment; and if they put
expediency before principle, then surely there is cause for concern. We
must give weight to attempts by Congress to seek to dispel either the
appearance or the reality of these influences. The remedies enacted by
law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law
and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.
According to an article in today's New York Times, Tom DeLay's lawyer is already arguing that the decision undermines the government's money laundering charges against his client. What's a little conflict compared with money laundering?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments