|
 very
century or so, there is an anti-constitutional movement in this
country, led by those who hold temporarily a public trust, to thwart
political speech, i.e., speech critical of incumbent officeholders
and their policies. The first successful attempt was the Sedition
Act of July 14, 1798, signed into law by President John Adams. It
stated, in relevant part:
Section 2:
That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall
cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published,
or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing,
uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing
or writings against the government of the United States, or either
house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of
the United States, with intent to defame the said government,
or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or
to bring them or either of them into contempt or disrepute; or
to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of
the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful
combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the
United States, or any act of the President of the United States,
done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested
by the Constitution of the United States, ... shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment
not exceeding two years.
The second
successful effort to limit political speech was the Sedition Act
of June 15, 1917, which was signed into law by President Woodrow
Wilson. A May 16, 1918 amendment to the Act stated, in relevant
part:
Section 3:
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully ...
utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous,
or abusive language about the form of government of the United
States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military
or naval forces of the United States ... or advocate, teach, defend,
or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section
enumerated..., shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000
or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both ...
This year a
new sedition act — disguised as "campaign-finance reform"
— was passed by the Senate but, by a narrow margin, was at least
temporarily beaten back yesterday on a procedural vote in the House
of Representatives.
The Sedition
Act of 2001 — usually referred to as the McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan
bills — would have severely limited and, in certain instances, criminalized,
political speech. It would have dictated when, how, and by whom
speech could be exercised by various citizens or groups of citizens
during an election cycle. For example, it outlawed the airing or
publication of issue advertisements 60 days prior to an election
in clear violation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley
v. Valeo. These ads are detested by incumbent members of
Congress because of their effectiveness.
The Sedition
Act of 2001 would also have outlawed so-called "soft money"
contributions, which are nothing more than donations to political
parties rather than specific candidates. The parties use this money
to fund their operations and support their candidates. These contributions
are largely unregulated. If the Sedition Act of 2001 had become
law, the political parties would have lost much of the financial
support necessary to play an active role in campaigns throughout
the country. Of course, this is of little consequence to two of
the law's sponsors — John McCain and Christopher Shays. Their careers
have been built on disparaging their own party.
While there
were tenuous (and, in my view, unsupportable) justifications for
the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1917 — an international crisis or
war — there is no equivalent circumstance motivating the advocates
of the current proposed law. This entire movement is built on the
proposition that influence exercised by citizens on their
representatives is corrupt. That is why they would limit, and in
some cases eliminate, speech potentially critical of them or their
policies. That is why they would cutoff avenues of effective communication
between citizens by imposing strict contribution levels on the public.
And that is why they would fine and even imprison those who would
speak out of turn.
Those who support
the Sedition Act of 2001 may masquerade as good-government reformers,
and they may use self-serving populist rhetoric to describe their
intentions, but the truth is that their real beef is with representative
government.
|
