The Voice of Young Conservatives Blog

I am rarely as proud of the Senate Republican Conference as I am today.  That’s because this week, every single Senate Republican, all 41 of them, stood up for free speech and the Constitution by blocking a vote on the Democrats’ shameful DISCLOSE Act.

The DISCLOSE Act is a naked attempt to chill political speech in the run-up to an election that is shaping up to be very bad for Democrats.  Its disturbing and unconstitutional provisions abound.

The Act would have mandated that, “A corporate chief, union head, or nonprofit leader…say they approved a campaign message” during the ad.  “Donors supporting the speech would also be disclosed.”

On the surface, such a requirement may not seem so bad.  Perhaps it would have some tangential effect on reducing the influence of special interests in elections.

But it would serve to further erode the protections of the First Amendment – a harm that is in no way outweighed by its perceived benefit. The DISCLOSE Act, a shameless acronym for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections,” was Democrats’ response to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. The court found that Congress may not prohibit funding of political speech by corporations and nonprofit groups. Since Congress could not regulate the speech, Democrats tried something different – forced disclosure. Of course, the goal is the same – restrict businesses or groups free speech rights – but it is accomplished by a different means.

As John Samples of the Cato Institute explains,

Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen hope that forcing disclosure will lead to a backlash by customers or shareholders against the relevant businesses or groups. If so, the leaders of the businesses or groups in question may decide to the costs of speaking out are too high and remain silent. In other words, Schumer and Van Hollen hope to chill the speech of their political opponents

Any group funding an ad must already disclose its donations via an FEC report, DISCLOSE would require those donors to personally appear and endorse the ad. It is a pure partisan ploy. Bending the First Amendment in an attempt to steer the business community, who has been utterly unimpressed with this Administration’s job legislation, out of elections. It’s a case where if you know you’re going to lose, change the rules of the game. But the Constitution is not just any set of rules; it is the bedrock upon which this “nation of laws” is built.

And the Act’s disclosure requirements aren’t even its most disturbing feature.  It also prohibits government contractors from making any “independent expenditures and payments for electioneering communications” and bars any recipient of TARP fund from “making any independent expenditure or disbursing any funds for an electioneering communication.”

Both of these provisions are blatantly unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.  These aren’t bans on donations to particular campaigns or politicians; these are bans on certain entities from spending money on political advocacy.  It prohibits core First Amendment speech and effectively bars these entities from engaging in this country’s political discourse.  As the editors of National Review summarized these restrictions:

By redefining thousands of businesses and non-profits as “government contractors,” it bans them from so much as mentioning an incumbent or candidate from three months before the primaries all the way through the general election — four months before the primaries in the case of presidential elections. That’s a six-month media blackout for congressional elections and more than a year in presidential races.

This “blackout” would have insured that virtually all election discourse is concentrated in the hands of the media, and insure that all election information be “vetted in editorial offices in Washington and New York.”

One has to wonder whether these Congressional Democrats, who claimed to be outraged over George Bush’s alleged trampling of the Constitution, have ever read the document they took oaths to uphold.

This bill was not about the fairness or corruption in campaigns; it certainly wasn’t about the Constitution; it was, in the words of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of this November’s election.”

Senate Republicans should be proud of their opposition to this shameless attack on our Constitutional rights by the Democrats.  But they must remember that the fight is not yet over.  The Dems could very well revive this bill after their recess, or worse, during the post-election lame-duck session.

Senate Republicans must stay principled, and be ready to form another united front when this bill resurfaces for debate.  I’m waiting for them to make me proud again.

By Avi Snyder