Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Free Speech is about Universal Free Expression, not “Elections” vs “Policy”


New Jersey’s new so-called “Dark Money” law, which forces mandatory public disclosure of financial donors to political action committees, is under attack in the courts. In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, Matthew Smith and Karen Haskin argued that “progressives [should] help fix N.J.'s dark money law. If that sounds politically suspicious, you’d be right. Note the word “fix,” rather than repeal. Here are some excerpts:

Our planet is undergoing a climate crisis. President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord – the first serious global attempt to set us on the right course toward a healthier and livable future.

After decades of denial and incrementalism, we are now left to do our part as New Jerseyans to build a healthy and resilient future for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. But just at the worst possible time, our lawmakers in Trenton are making it harder for us to do that work.

Furthermore, organizations like Food & Water Action and STAND Central New Jersey are supposed to have the opportunity to provide input on legislation affecting their community of grassroots advocates.

Yet that process broke down completely when the Legislature passed a disclosure bill, also known as a ‘dark money’ bill, that benefits large corporations and special interests that damage our environment and work against progressive interests, like LGBT rights and women’s reproductive freedoms.

The disclosure bill placed onerous new requirements on citizen-driven advocates working to protect the environment against polluters. Such advocates push for policies that will transform our bad energy habits into clean and renewable solutions.

At the same time, the law did nothing to increase disclosure requirements for 501c(6) trade organizations that promote business interests in Trenton, giving polluters and big corporate interests, like the Chamber of Commerce and the Petroleum Institute, an advantage in the policymaking process.

I don’t know if that last statement is true. But if the law is not balanced, it’s bad on “Equal Protection” grounds, if nothing else. That aside, if you smell the stench of political partisanship, rather than a defense of free speech, you’re political sense of “smell” is spot-on. This next excerpt is the tipoff:

We call on the Legislature to instead work with the progressive community on new legislation that protects the privacy rights of donors and treats citizen-backed groups and powerful trade associations equally.
In addition, new legislation must recognize the difference between political action committees that seek to influence our elections and citizen-backed non-profits that advocate for policy solutions in Trenton.

My emphasis. Note who are exalted as “citizens”—our beloved Left statists. Note who are not—the Left’s political opponents. I posted these comments:

legislation must recognize the difference between political action committees that seek to influence our elections and citizen-backed non-profits that advocate for policy solutions in Trenton.

Nonsense. There is zero distinction. Free speech to “advocate” for policy and free speech to “influence” elections are 2 sides of the same sacred free speech coin. Advocacy is influence. Influence is advocacy. Every person, whether individually or through voluntary collaboration with others, has a right to free expression for the purpose of political influence and persuasion and advocacy, whether involving policy or elections of politicians. Period. Elected politicians ARE the policy-makers.

Freedom of speech is an inalienable right of all voluntary associations, be it a Chamber of Commerce, a STAND Central New Jersey, a Petroleum Institute, or a Food & Water Action. 

Spending is integral to speech—an indispensable means to public expression—so mandatory disclosure is a violation of the First Amendment, not to mention an attack on privacy. Smith and Haskin are right to oppose the so-called “dark money” law. But what could have been a principled self-interested defense of free speech turned out to be a political hack rant for the purpose of self-aggrandizement at the expense of others’ inalienable rights to free speech. “I’m entitled to my free speech, but you’re not entitled to yours” is not a defense of free speech. Free speech for my opinions but not for your opinions is not a moral argument. It is a political diatribe.  

ALL political advocacy organizations are associations of citizens, and ALL citizens regardless of political opinions deserve protection of their free speech rights, equally and at all times. 

* [Matthew Smith is New Jersey state director for Food & Water Action. Karen Haskin is president of STAND Central New Jersey, a grassroots organization.]

Related Reading:









The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech--by Kimberley Strassel, especially Chapter 2, “Publius & Co.”



No comments: