OPINION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2013
THE ITEM
A7
To submit a letter to the editor, e-mail letters@theitem.com
To submit a letter to the editor, e-mail letters@theitem.com COMMENTARY
|
The judiciary and free speech “The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day.” — U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United (2010)
W
ASHINGTON — Brick by brick, judges are dismantling the wall of separation that legislators have built between political activity and the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and association. The latest examples, from Mississippi and Arizona, reflect the judiciary’s proper engagement in defending citizens from the regulation of political speech, aka “campaign finance reform.” In 2011, a few likeminded friends and neighbors in Oxford, Miss., who George had been WILL meeting for a few years to discuss politics, decided to work together to support passage of an initiative amending Mississippi’s Constitution. The amendment, restricting the power of the state and local governments to take private property by eminent domain, was provoked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo ruling that governments could, without violating the Fifth Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”), take property for the “public use” of transferring it to persons who would pay more taxes to the government. The Mississippi friends and neighbors wanted to pool their funds to purchase posters, fliers and local newspaper advertising. They discovered that if, as a group, they spent more than $200 to do these simple things, they would be required by the state’s campaign finance law to register as a “political committee.” And if, as individuals, any of them spent more than $200 supporting the initiative, they must report this political activity to the state. Mississippi defines a political committee as any group of persons spending more than $200 to influence voters for or against candidates “or balloted measures.” Supposedly, regulation of political activity is to prevent corruption of a candidate or the appearance thereof. How does one corrupt a “balloted measure”? Granted, there is some slight informational value in knowing where money supporting a voter initiative comes from. But surely not enough to burden ordinary citizens expending $200 with monthly reporting requirements, concerning which legal advice might be necessary because any violation of
the campaign regulations “is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail” for up to a year. As the Supreme Court said in its excellent Citizens United ruling, “Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People ‘of common intelligence must necessarily guess at (the law’s) meaning and differ as to its application.’” So, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi held: “Where, as here, potential speakers might well require legal counsel to determine which regulations even apply, above and beyond how to comport with those requirements, the burdens imposed by the state’s regulations are simply too great to be borne by the state’s interest in groups raising or expending as little as $200.” And the same is true regarding “the state’s informational interest in individual speakers” expending $200. When, in 2011, Dina Galassini of Fountain Hills, Ariz., wanted to oppose her city’s plan to augment its spending with a $29.6 million bond issue, she sent emails encouraging 23 friends and acquaintances to write letters of opposition to newspapers and to join her in a demonstration. Six days later, the town clerk sternly admonished her: “I would strongly encourage you to cease any campaign related activities until the requirements of the law have been met.” Arizona’s law says that whenever two or more people collaborate, using at least $250, to influence voters about anything, they instantly become a “political committee,” a magical transformation that triggers various requirements — registering with the government, filling out forms and establishing a bank account for the “committee” even if it has no intention of raising money. All this must be done before members of the “committee” are permitted to speak. Galassini got no response when she wrote to the clerk to find out if she could have permission to email the 23 persons to tell them the demonstrations were canceled. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona supported Galassini. It had to, given that Citizens United said laws requiring official permission to speak “function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the (government) power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.” Liberals who love the regulatory state loathe Citizens United. You can understand why. George Will’s email address is georgewill@washpost.com. © 2013, Washington Post Writers Group
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Air Force will not release names Regarding the Tuesday, Oct. 29 Henry L. Hurley letter to the editor, the Air Force has zero tolerance for sexual harassment and we hold every airman, regardless of rank, responsible and accountable to the highest standards of personal and professional behavior. Every case requiring disciplinary action is unique, and our commanders carefully consider what actions are appropriate in each case. Throughout the process of investigating and taking action on complaints, we also must protect the rights of military members. Airmen who are victims, and those below generalofficer rank who are the subject of administrative action, retain the rights afforded to them by the Privacy Act. We therefore will not release the name of any individuals associated with these cases. That general expectation of privacy does not exist in public proceedings such as courts-martial, which explains why Lt. Col. Wilkerson’s name was released. Our willingness to protect individual privacy also cannot prevent those instances in which airmen choose to discuss issues related to their case through news reports, social media or other public venues. MAJ. DAVID FAGGARD 9th Air Force director of public affairs Shaw Air Force Base
Hurtful remarks are dividing our country Regarding Mr. James Cox’s letter to the editor Oct. 23: First of all, I would like to thank him for the time he spent defending our wonderful country. God bless you. My opinion is different than his, as I am so tired and disgusted reading all the derogatory comments people make. The criticism of our president has nothing to do with race. The “demoncrats” were constantly picking President George W. Bush to pieces. It seems that our news likes to print controversial comments, as they say it sells papers. Television is the same way. I feel like our country would be better off if, in some way, we could applaud our leaders instead of criticizing them. We are in an age where people love the publicity on TV and in newspapers when they make derogatory statements. I suppose they think this is “freedom
of speech.” People are hurt by these remarks. All of this causes turmoil in our country, dividing our country. Please, please let’s try to be more thoughtful of our leaders and fellow Americans. Let’s do away with all this back-andforth bickering. LAURA RUTH BAKER Sumter
Country’s ‘tailspin’ can only be attributed to Obama I must respond to today’s (Oct. 23) letter in The Item from Mr. James V. Cox Sr. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Cox for his service to our country. There is no one I admire more than a person who has done what Mr. Cox has. One of our greatest presidents came from the military, and he could have won regardless of the party he was affiliated with. With all due respect, I believe Mr. Cox is wrong. Certainly, there might be a minority that “hate” Barack Obama, as Mr. Cox puts it; however, the fact that the country is in a “tailspin” can only be attributed to Barack Obama’s policies and lack of leadership. I think the majority of people in the U.S. would welcome an effective president, whatever the color of his or her skin. This recent crisis was engineered by Obama and his cohorts in order to have something to blame the Republicans for. His administration is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany every day. All they are about is spreading propaganda toward winning the House in 2014 and then proceeding to complete their socialist agenda. I will sum up by saying that I feel that I am representative of those folks that feel that Barack Obama has greatly wounded this country and, in fact, has been guilty of impeachable offenses. I have no bias regarding the color of his skin. However, I feel sorry for the blacks who had great hopes for his presidency, and because of his failures, they likely will never elect another black president. WARREN C. FORDHAM Manning
If you don’t understand, look in dictionary I am sure that Mrs. Essie Johnson is very happy to see how many of you are making her famous in The Item. Some of you are enmeshed in what
N.G. OSTEEN 1843-1936 The Watchman and Southron
H.G. OSTEEN 1870-1955 Founder, The Item
H.D. OSTEEN 1904-1987 The Item
she has written. She has the ability to edify and use certain vocabulary words, which shows she is an eloquent writer. She elucidated everything that she spoke about, she is a prodigy. She was referring to certain people and not you, Vickers. If you and the people who are being relentless, and didn’t understand her vocabulary words, then you people should have looked those words up in the Webster dictionary. You are correct when you said “only her opinion matters to her.” You don’t understand that is the reason why she wrote those articles, because her opinion does matters to her. It seems to matter to each one of you who are answering her. She is scintillating, and that is a good thing. What difference does it make if she is a Democrat or a Shibboleth? It is her prerogative to use any kind of vocabulary words that she desires to use. You and others are trying to disabuse her, but you all never answered her question as to why didn’t you and everyone else who are disaffected with President Obama’s leadership, as to why didn’t you all run for president? She is right, when the country was in a recession under the leadership of President George W. Bush you naysayers didn’t discuss anything about him. You who are unbraiding Mrs. Johnson are ambiguous in speech, therefore, if the shoe fits then wear it. What she said was veritable, and she is titillating ha, ha, she was not taciturn. If you don’t understand my vocabulary of words it doesn’t matter to me, because that is why Mr. Webster created his dictionary. You, Vickers and others like you, just cannot embrace the ideal of freedom of speech, liberty and just for all. YOLANDA RAMIREZ Sumter
Thanks for participating in 2nd Annual Dinner Gala We would like to thank everyone who participated in our 2nd Annual Dinner Gala and helped to make it a huge success. Thank you, and hopefully we’ll see you next year, Oct. 13, 2014, for our 3rd Annual Dinner Gala. Again, thank you. DR. JUANITA BRITTON Rembert Area Community Coalition board and committee Rembert
HUBERT D. OSTEEN JR. | EDITOR AND CHAIRMAN
Founded October 15, 1894 20 N. Magnolia St. Sumter, SC 29150
|
MARGARET W. OSTEEN 1908-1996 The Item
H. GRAHAM OSTEEN II Co-President
KYLE BROWN OSTEEN Co-President
JOHN DUVALL OSTEEN Vice President and Publisher
LARRY MILLER CEO