John Stossel on freedom of speech and corporate money in politics

John Stossel has a fine post on liberal/progressive intolerance for freedom of speech. He notes the liberal fury at the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision, in which the Court found that political expenditures by corporations (and unions) are constitutionally protected free speech.

Excerpts:

Asking government to regulate political speech is a poisonous idea. Politicians naturally think that people who challenge their power should be restrained.

... political (and religious) speech is exactly what the Founders were eager to protect when they wrote the First Amendment. 

... The New York Times said the [Citizens United] decision "strikes at the heart of democracy." The Washington Post quoted someone saying it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions." 

Please. 

The swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, was right to say: "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." 

He also said, "Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it." 

The American Civil Liberties Union agreed, but most progressives condemned the Supremes for "judicial activism." I thought progressives favored free speech. I was wrong.

One need not be a fan of corporations to see that restricting anyone's speech is dangerous. One government lawyer said that even corporate-funded books favoring candidates could be illegal...

But the progressives' campaign goes on. The Supreme Court right now is revisiting this issue because Montana's Supreme Court ruled that Montana can ban corporate spending on state politics. Sens. McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse filed a friend-of-the-court brief claiming that allowing corporate speech would bring a "strong potential for corruption and perception thereof." 

Right, as though politicians don't routinely constitute a "potential for corruption" all by themselves. 

It is shameful that leftists let their hatred of corporations lead them to throw free speech under the bus. There is a smarter way to get corporate money out of politics: Shrink the state. If government has fewer favors to sell, citizens will spend less money trying to win them.

The government has no business regulating political (or religious) speech. That is the clear meaning of the First Amendment. The fact that people speak as a group (a corporation or a union or a school district) makes no difference. The federal government has no more right to limit the speech of Exxon/Mobil or your local school board than it has the right to limit the speech of The New York Times or the Democratic Party.

Ironically, liberals are responsible for the most corrupting aspect of corporate money and politics. The growth of government and the extension of government interference into myriad aspects of the economy and our private lives makes organized efforts to buy influence in government policy inevitable.

The best way to keep corporate influence out of politics is to minimize government involvement in corporate matters, so there are no favors to buy.