Why Do Incumbents Fear More Speech?

DISCLOSE Act would only help sitting officeholders

It is happening again. Powerful incumbent politicians fear electoral defeat and they are blaming free speech for it. New York Senator Chuck Schumer is quoted in a recent New York Times article saying, "Reform of the 'super PAC' problem is a major issue for Democrats in the next Congress." Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said if Democrats regain the House, "We would pass a DISCLOSE Act... Amend the Constitution to overturn 'Citizens United.'" We are headed towards the proverbial fiscal cliff and Schumer and Pelosi want to focus on chilling free speech in the next Congress?

Unfortunately, we have heard this story before. In 2010, as Americans suffered with high unemployment, the Democrat-controlled Congress in their great wisdom focused on the DISCLOSE Act instead of legislation to encourage job creation. This misguided bill failed in 2010 and a second version of the DISCLOSE Act failed again earlier this year in Congress. The DISCLOSE Act was an incumbent protection plan that would restrict the rights of the American people to join together and speak out against elected officials and it is worth noting that it was pushed during election years. The American people want their government to work for them, not to continually attempt to pass flawed pieces of legislation that only help ineffective incumbents get reelected.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) already has plenty of regulations on the books. The FEC regulates 71 distinct entities, which in turn are subject to varying rules for 33 different types of political speech. Overall, the FEC has adopted over 500 pages of regulations and more than twice that number of pages of explanations and justifications for those rules. To say those rules are overbearing and a bureaucratic nightmare would be an understatement. King George would have liked a lot of these onerous campaign finance regulations restricting free speech, especially before Citizens United v. FEC struck some of them down. In our case, the government went so far as to argue that books could be banned by FEC bureaucrats, which the high court rightly rejected.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court recognized that "the right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it." What makes America great is that both sides of the argument can be heard and the government cannot control speech. That is why it is so troubling that those who are in power continually try to protect their own standing by limiting the speech of others through legislation like the DISCLOSE Act. Americans cherish their right of free speech and we cannot let the government take that fundamental right away. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech - the American way since 1776.

David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @David_Bossie.

A Note from Politix: We want to offer our users high-quality, informed perspectives from outside writers. We're excited to bring you Guest Posts from top writers, elected officials, thought leaders, organizations and others. We'd love to make Politix a welcoming place for activists, intellectuals and others to contribute their views, so please help us grow by keeping your comments respectful and on topic.

Should there be more or fewer regulations on campaign spending?

[Lpguy]

Personally i would like to see a cap to the spending limit, and the funds to fill that allotted amount coming from private human being donors - not business, not PAC's, not unions.

[ir0nw0lfe]

I could agree to that.

[Polusalo]

@ir0nw0lfe
Same.

[Fishbone345]

Add, paying for the conventions by the candidates contributions instead of taxpayers money, and I'm sold as well.

[ir0nw0lfe]

I don't know that is completely a free speech issue. Unions backing one side, uber-corps backing another side. Seems the real solution lies in solving voter apathy. It is necessary now more than ever for voters to do their own research and make informed decisions. Then you can dismiss the outrageous and fear tactics from both sides. Personal responsibility, now there's a new concept!

[GunPolitics]

and yet in an age of reality tv it seems fewer voters care enough to do their own research - i could be wrong as i have no statistic to back this up but it is how the situation seems to me. This is actually one of those cases where i hope i am wrong...

[DerivePI]

I figured an unemployment rate of over 10% would help solve some of the voter apathy. Oh well.

[DARSB]

Irony:(noun) Posting "Personal responsibility, now there's a new concept!" in a comment on a post exalting the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which upheld the "free speech" rights of anonymous financial donors, who thereby avoid the messy needs of standing by their "free speech."

[DerivePI]

@DARSB - If it were as simple as signing your name to every political statement made, OK (pretty much everything you and I say on Politix). However, if it forces everyone on a blogging site to comply with the Federal Election Campaign Laws (244 page PDF of DC Lawyer windbaggery - just downloaded it - circ file) then I'm really against it. So is the ACLU. The DISCLOSE Act couldn't even make it to the floor on the Democrat controlled Senate. It addresses issues that are already addressed by previous law. Its a red herring in an election year. The final nail, its sponsored by Chuck Schumer.

I continue to endorse the use of Opensecrets.org if you really care who is supporting each campaign (and you should).

[dances-weebles]

@DerivePI the employment/unemployment problem has nothing really to do with who is sitting in washington.

[ctc]

How anyone can think a bottomless pit of money, spent by shadowy figures on attack ads ad nauseam is either free speech or a good thing just boggles the mind.
I thought free speech was free.....not bought and paid for.....over and over.

[NO-BAMA]

Sounds like the Democrats are trying to set up their agenda already so when Barry loses they can blame the Republican "super pacs" for his defeat, instead of taking responsibility for his own policies/regulations. Why are the complaining about "super pacs"? Both sides have them. Its been reported that Barry has even come come close to his $1 billion goal. Especially since this is being brought up by the likes of schumer and pelosi. Instead of focusing on the unemployment/jobs situation in America,(like they say they do) they are more worried about rigging the election process for future liberals to keep their elected posts.
They were complaining and crying about Barry being outraised back when the lube tried to get Scott Walker recalled and thrown out of office. Its nice to see that they are still up to their same old tricks. How pathetic.

[Calfkiller]

Agreed. There weren't ANY problems whatsoever when Barry was on the way to being the 1st billion dollar candidate. These fools have spent the last 4 yrs. touting every warm and fuzzy liberal agenda their little hearts desired with little regard to the effect on the country. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that whether they realize it or not the left does not want the economy to turn around, or unemployment to stabilize. I think the thing Nana Pelosi fears most is an employed, self educated, discerning voter. Her track record proves it. Rampant support for the fairness doctrine everytime their is an election and dems are polling behind. Or her stating that we would have to pass the healthcare bill to see what's in it. Look at her home state, California is in worse shape financially than any other state in the country. How's the bay area doing? You wouldn't know there was anything wrong with the country or the economy if you lived in Nana's voting district. I have family that does. We all had a get together last August and were all talking, I asked her how things were in Cali.(rhetorical question I know). She said "things are kinda bad, but San Francisco's doing pretty well, I don't know why". I says to her "I do." I'm pretty sure it has something to do with Pelosi funneling 6 billion off the stimulus into her voting district." she nearly lept at me. I don't think I was supposed to know the facts. They are rabid liberals. I'm a staunch conservative. I love family reunions.

[David944]

This is radical but defiantly though provoking. http://dirtyunclesam.com/

[David944]

I should add thought provoking in the terms of what you may a corporation is.

[Thunderchicken]

Why Do Incumbents Fear More Speech?

Because the more of a record you have, the more foibles there will be to be exploited.(Ask Akin about that.)

As for the Citizens United decision, I think it somewhat leveled the playing field where unions once had an advantage. In a perfect world all candidates for office would have equal access to the electorate.(That ain't gonna happen.)

[Fitz]

Really not sure. I look for quality not quantity. Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.

[wangotango]

And some people still want this administration to continue so these stupid agendas can be pushed instead

[Dan_Tien]

"Americans cherish their right of free speech and we cannot let the government take that fundamental right away." The Washington Supreme Court ruled that lying in political ads is protected free speech. Lying during a criminal trial, however, is punishable by law.

[dances-weebles]

that's only because of the fact that if lying in politics were illegal, then washington would be a ghost town and every statehouse would be empty.

[dances-weebles]

campaign spending should be limited severely and should be paid for out of the candidate's own pocket. if donations are necessary, then limit them to out of pocket change, not corporate gifts and super pacs.

[ir0nw0lfe]

So only the rich can afford to run for office. Pretty much the same as now.

[formerrepub]

How about we break up this monster into smaller sections and declare our independance from DC. Then all the people that want man on man sex, you all can move to your section, all the people who aren't responsible and want someone else to take care of you and tell you what to do, you will have your section, and the rest of us who believe in a small goverment and minding our own business, we can do our own thing and guess what, you idiots aren't getting in!!!!! Hows that for utopianism?

[ctc]

You just described Los Angeles.

[GetAwake]

Citizens United is a disaster. It almost seems like it may be an "Attack-on-Free-Speech-by -design". The majority of the American people believe that it was a mistake...but it's going to take Amending the Constitution to get rid of it. I can see it now: "In order to repeal CU, we're going to have to give up some of our liberties..." Shouldn't be the case. Corporations are NOT people.

[stimpy]

But corporations are made up of people. Houses are not people, so when they start talking about raising the taxes on them then homeowners should'nt be able to go to the entity that is raising the taxes and have their say in it.

[Kptpredsfan]

fewer regulations but one big one. Private donations only. period. I know I tend to go to the left on here pretty much all the time (and you are welcome!) but both sides have their super rich, go to groups for BIG money campaigning (Unions, and big corporations). It needs to stop on both sides, but that would take some serious bipartisanship in congress. I will win the lottery ten times, fly to mars for lunch on the starship enterprise, come back and create world peace before that happens with this congress. sad but true

[Vance1]

Democrats only like free speech when its on their side, when its used agaisnt them , Then they fear it and want it taken away.

[stimpy]

Obama's donation site is set up so you don't have to use a ccv code to donate money. And most welfare voters may not understand this, since ebt don't have a ccv number you need to enter, but it's there to make sure you're a legitimate person to keep fraud down. Obama's site accepted millions of dollars while Romney's only accepted around 30 thousand here recently. Why? More people donating to Obama? Nurp!
A test was done! A man who is BANNED from making any donations to either side showed how easy it was. He enters the information saying he is from another country, but said he lives in new york, and uses an Arkansas address and a made up zip code. And then tries to make a 5 dollar donation to both parties.
Obama's accepted the donation and thanked him for it.

But Romney's declined it and flagged it as a fraudulent account!

A letter written to Congress.
Dear Congress.
Prove this to yourself. Go to http://barackobama.com and donate $3 using ANY name or address you want. Try Adolph Hitler, 123 Nuremburg Way, Berlin, Germany and for good measure put in Dictator of Nazi Party as employer. Wait till you get an email back saying Dear Adolph, "Thank you for your generous donation...."

We all know legitimate operations, to prevent credit card fraud, require that the address and name match what the credit card issuer has on file. This is called the Address Verification System (AVS), an additional layer of protection requires the three digit security code. "CCV"
The Obama team has found a way to hide their actual donors by collecting lots of small payments from unknown people with fake names.
This allows the campaign to exceed campaign donation limits and violate the goals of federal finance laws.

[WMCOL]

Too bad the GOP wants to stifle speech by creating problems that don't exist so they can disenfranchise voters by setting up unnecessary hoops for them to jump through in order to vote.

And the reddest of red states, Oklahoma, has made it more difficult than any other state to get on the Presidentisl ballot, effectively shutting down speech from those candidates who are not mainstream.

David Bossie needs to clean-up his own house before he starts talking about cleaning up someone elses house.

[Everyman]

It's human nature. If you look at what our founders said, this subject has been covered. Why people are so ignorant is the fault of a Federal Public Union School System. I'm glad the author of this subject brought it up, even though I'm not sure of the motives.
States are responsible for Education. Not some nut in Washington. This is why America IS America.

[justsayin]

It's not about free speech. It's about anonymous doners hiding behind the power of super pacs.

[TheLoneRanger]

Democrat politicians have always been against the free speech Rights of Republican members.

[FollowTheMoney]

I'm for anything that limits an Incumbents ability to make a political career of government service. As I've said time and again, We have to take profit out of politics before we can start recovering from the damage done by generations professional politicians.