Category: First Amendment rights

Categories
First Amendment rights responsibility

Reset the Net?

I don’t know on which version the current Internet is said to be. Internet 4.0? Web 3.1? HTML something-or-other? (You may notice: I’m not a tech guy.)

But it’s changing. Streaming video and the fast development of cloud computing are revolutionizing the way we think about the “common space” beyond our computers.

Oh, and then there are all the “post-PC” devices — smart phones and tablets and the like — metamorphosing with Ovidian avidity.

Nevertheless, there’s one big element that outshines them all: government surveillance. 

Shhh. This is just between me and you, but … this is not just between you and me. The NSA and other branches of our government insist on listening in.

In the past year, since Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks began hitting the news stream, we’ve learned more and more about how intrusive our government spies not only want to be, but can be; not only can be, but are.

So, to celebrate the first anniversary of the beginning of the Snowden Era, folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in co-operation with good netizens everywhere, have proclaimed today, June 5, “Reset the Net” Day.

A day of protest? More a day of preparation. What can you do to make your Internet presence a bit more secure?

Well, according to the EFF activists, and according to Snowden himself, there are many things you can do. Encryption is one of them.

My advice? Don’t ask me about it. Consult the experts. Let’s think more carefully about life under the eyes of our overlords.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights political challengers

Maximum Political Freedom

Freedom battles tyranny across the globe, with the right to speak out politically essential for freedom to prevail.

A decision handed down this week by U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa, in a case brought by Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, inspires much hope to protect speech and prevent tyranny here in America.

O’Keefe, the group and “all or nearly all right-of-center groups and individuals in Wisconsin who engaged in issue advocacy from 2010 to the present” were targeted by the Milwaukee County District Attorney and others in a bizarre, secretive politically-motivated criminal investigation. Armed agents raided homes at dawn, seizing computers, mailing lists, files, etc.

O’Keefe and conservative state leaders were then slapped with subpoenas (demanding all their documents) and a gag order. This effectively silenced them from talking about the investigation. Under the circumstances, these groups found themselves unable to raise funds or engage in political activity since.

The thrust of the case against them was the mere assertion that spending on TV ads about collective bargaining or other issues was campaign spending for Governor Scott Walker. Judge Randa found no evidence of express advocacy for Walker and, therefore, no lawful basis for the outrageous persecution.

“The plaintiffs have been shut out of the political process merely by association with conservative politicians,” his decision read, adding a warning that, historically, “attempts to purify the public square lead to places like the Guillotine and the Gulag.”

O’Keefe’s Wisconsin Club for Growth spends what some call “dark money” — donors are not disclosed — but the judge explained that our constitutional system cherishes and protects the free discussion of political ideas by groups like O’Keefe’s as possibly “the best way . . . to address problems of political corruption.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Abridge Too Far

Sick and tired of “too much money” in politics? Worried the average citizen’s voice is being drowned out?

Thirty-six Democratic U.S. Senators have just the thing: a re-write of the First Amendment.

They’ve co-sponsored a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Senate Joint Resolution 19.

“We would give the power back to the Congress,” says chief sponsor Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM).

Wait. That’s amending reality. Congress never had any such power. The instructions in the Constitution are quite clear: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”

These 36 solons reverse course with the wording

… Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on —

  1. the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
  2. the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Our brand new constitution would not contain a single word of restraint. Instead, powerful congressional incumbents would wield complete and total control over all money to be raised or spent by their competitors.

And note: they already enjoy a tremendous name recognition advantage over their challengers. What happens when incumbents limit campaign spending too low for challengers to compete?

Its negation of rights is so sweeping that the amendment actually states, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”

No worries for the New York Times, then. But just how much of the First Amendment do the rest of us get to keep?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

Let Us Give, Too

“There are really no limits on the amount of money you can give to a campaign,” explained Chuck Todd on his MSNBC program, The Daily Rundown. “We could claim there are limits, but they don’t really exist because of the way the system works.”

Todd isn’t talking about you and me. We have limits. By law, each person in each election can give no more than $2,600 to any single candidate.

He’s focused on billionaires. You know, the Koch brothers we hear so much about, or gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson. And, on the Democratic side, the super-rich Tom Streyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and others.

But billionaires have limits, too. Their advantage is simply being able to afford the work-arounds. They can hire lawyers to advise them through the maze of speech and finance regulations. They can fund a SuperPAC or an independent expenditure or start a whole new organization if necessary to get their message out.

I’m not complaining. Billionaires have an inalienable right to flap their jaws and spend their money.

I’m only saying that we merely aspiring billionaires — the great American mostly washed middle class — should also be free to flap our jaws, to make our big political contribution and to have our say.

But we don’t. It’s a federal crime for you or me to donate one dollar more than $2,600 to the general election campaign of a congressional candidate we deeply believe in.

That it is a crime is the biggest campaign finance scandal of all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

Lawyered Up

“The first thing we do,” declaims Dick the butcher, “let’s kill all the lawyers.”

Last night, as I dined with attorneys David Langdon and Joshua Bolinger, in town representing the Susan B. Anthony List and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes before the U.S. Supreme Court today, echoes of Henry VI could be heard amongst the clinking of glasses, the “dead lawyer” jokes, and other minor eruptions of mirth. Shoring up for the big case, you see.

Susan B. Anthony List v. Steven Driehaus involves an Ohio law designating it a crime to knowingly or recklessly make a false statement about a political candidate or ballot measure.

But who is to determine what is false or true in the heat of a campaign?

A government board? 

Well, yes. Funny you should ask.

Back in 2010, the Susan B. Anthony List began publicizing that various members of Congress, including Ohio Congressman Steve Driehaus, had voted for federal funding of abortion when they voted for Obamacare. The group planned billboards, to read: “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.”

Driehaus quickly filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). While people of good will can honestly disagree as to the “truthiness” of the charge (as an amusing amicus brief filed by the Cato institute dubbed it), the OEC decided there was probable cause to prosecute the Susan B. Anthony List.

So the billboard company refused the group’s ads. The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes also dropped their plans to similarly publicize Driehaus’s record.

Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine has admitted harboring “serious concerns” about the constitutionality of the Ohio law. However, today’s issue before the High Court isn’t the policing of campaign speech itself, but whether these groups have standing to challenge the law.

Both issues should be 9-0 decisions.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture

Firefox Fired

Brendan Eich resigned last week as CEO of Mozilla under pressure from gay rights activists upset because six years ago Eich had given a thousand bucks to California’s anti-gay marriage initiative, Prop 8.

On Fox News’s Special Report, George Will dubbed the story “redundant evidence that progressives are for diversity in everything but thought,” as well as an alarming illustration of the intolerance of “sore winners.”

Whatever one thinks of the campaign to drive out Eich (and a number of prominent gay leaders have spoken out against it), those demanding Eich’s ouster were within their legal rights. Still, such a political attack wouldn’t be possible without government assistance in denying donor anonymity. That’s the major lesson Mr. Will drew from the fracas: anonymous contributions are vital:

The people advocating full disclosure of campaign contributions say, “we just want voters to be able to make an informed choice.” That’s not what they’re doing at all. They really want to enable themselves to mount punitive campaigns, to deter people, and to chill political speech.

What’s wrong with today’s vendetta politics (what Pat Buchanan calls “The New Blacklist”) is not that boycotts are immoral, but that, when made personal and coupled with ideological conflict, they lead to never-ending feuds.

Anonymous speech and press and donations remain key to a peaceful society.

Advocates of mandatory campaign finance disclosure should be asked, “do you also, then, oppose the secret ballot?”

The privacy of the voting booth was also instituted to insulate people from the worst aspects of partisan discord . . . and commerce from the legacy of the Hatfields and McCoys.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights judiciary national politics & policies

Limiting the Little Guy

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission correctly struck down limits on the total amount of money a person can contribute to all federal candidates and to political parties and PACs in a two-year election cycle.

After all, what part of “Congress shall make no law” provides the specific authority for Congress to limit what a person may give to a political party?  Or the number of candidates one may support?

But in his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that, “Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.”

“No matter what five Supreme Court justices say,” announced Public Citizen, “the First Amendment was never intended to provide a giant megaphone for the wealthiest to use to shout down the rest of us.”

I want the public to be heard, not shouted down.

Which is why it is not Breyer, but Justice Clarence Thomas who is right: this ruling didn’t go far enough. While justly removing the limits on the aggregate amount a wealthy person can contribute, the Court upheld the limit of $2,600 on what you or I can give to a single candidate.

The super-wealthy can spend millions in an independent expenditure for their preferred candidate. Fine. It’s their money. Yet, a person of more modest means doesn’t have the dough to launch an effective independent effort.

Instead, if you felt strongly enough, you could dip into savings or work a second job to afford to give, say, $3,000 or $4,000. Except that our campaign finance laws prevent it. This is the limit that affects the most people. Non-rich people.

Stop limiting the little guy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

Debate Versus Intimidate

Political donors often prefer to remain anonymous.

It’s not just shyness. Anonymity can protect you from unscrupulous political opponents. The higher your profile — especially if you’re persuasive, or your story contradicts some treasured “narrative” — the higher your risk may be.

At Breitbart.com, Mike Flynn writes that “non-disclosure of donors” is a shield inherited from “the civil rights struggle, when the government sought to protect donors from intimidation by groups like the KKK.” Nowadays, sundry leftist groups and government officials seem to be the premier intimidators.

Character assassination is just one hazard. Flynn discusses what happened, for example, to cancer patient Bill Elliot and insurance broker Steven Tucker. Elliot spoke publicly about how his coverage had been dropped thanks to Obamacare. Tucker, who helped Elliott get a new policy, also talked to the media about the situation. In short order, both men got notices from the IRS of impending audits.

Then there are the assaults on businessmen like the Koch brothers and Frank VanderSloot (whose case I’ve talked about before). VanderSloot was targeted by the IRS, the Department of Labor and a U.S. Senate office soon after the 2012 Obama campaign published a hit list of “bad” political donors — i.e., major contributors to the Romney campaign.

In light of such realities, it’s fine that espousers of political causes are sometimes pseudonymous, and that donors to them are sometimes anonymous. Every law-abiding individual has an inalienable right to make of himself a harder target.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Photo by arbyreed used under a Creative Commons license.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

How to Protect Yourself from Spying

We value our privacy.

No wonder we’re nervous. The National Security Agency, in blithe disregard of our constitutional right against unwarranted search and seizure, has been indiscriminately scooping up data (“meta” data) about our communications (among other covert acts that have compromised the security of our transactions).

However the controversies triggered by the scandals play out, it’s clearer than ever that you can’t trust the government to respect your right to privacy. Your line of first defense has to be you.

Even before the NSA scandal broke, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was on the case, explaining how to reduce your risk when saving data to your computer, sending the data elsewhere, and entrusting it to third parties. Their Surveillance Self-Defense site spells out what the government can legally do to spy on you and what you can legally do to protect yourself. The discussion includes nitty-gritty stuff like advice on the proper use of passwords and encryption, protecting yourself against malware, and lowering the risk of eavesdropping on confidential conversations.

That’s right, SSD talks about “what the government can legally do” to breach your data or listen in on your life, not so much about what it can do illegally. A banner atop the home page notes that the site “has not yet been updated to reflect the 2013 revelations about the NSA. . . .”

Updates are coming. Meanwhile, we can fill in some of the blanks ourselves. . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Illustration by ocularinvasion used under a Creative Commons license.

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture national politics & policies

Supreme Politics and Sublime Congress

Former FEC commissar Trevor Potter says the Supreme Court “should get more politically savvy.”

Potter really means the High Court should agree with him, and allow incumbents in Congress to write the campaign finance rules under which they — and their opponents — operate, undisturbed by constitutional review.

Last week, the Court heard McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case concerning Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, who wants to give $1,776 dollars to more candidates. He’s limited, because by law he cannot give over $48,600 to all federal candidates combined.

Why? Apparently those who contribute $48,600 or less to candidates they believe in are pure of heart, but that once that forty-eighth-thousandth-six-hundredth-and-first dollar is donated it can only be devoid of any decent intention, an unquestionable attempt to corrupt our government.

Most observers recognize that such an arbitrary limit is constitutionally suspect and likely to be voided. Including Potter, who is already furious that the Roberts Court has restricted congressional legislation dealing with campaign regulation in all five cases it has thus far considered. Potter accuses it of “judicial hubris” and “contempt for legislative authority” and “a surprising lack of respect for Congress’s expertise on political matters.”

How could “a lack of respect” for Congress be “surprising”?

Speaking of “political savvy,” where’s Potter’s?

Potter concludes that the Supremes “should leave politics to the politicians, who have a better sense of when the intersection of fundraising and lawmaking leads to corruption.”

Sure, politicians have a better sense of that corrupt intersection . . . they’re always there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.