National Review
The new Democratic schemes to control political discourse
‘We the people. Those words changed everything. Power was in the people, not the government. Freedom to think, speak, act, criticize your government, all protected ”. Great rhetoric, worthy of praise. However, these words by candidate Joe Biden presented President Joe Biden’s agenda to restrict the very freedom that these words extol. Biden’s “Plan to Secure Government Work for the People” recognizes that the First Amendment impedes its ultimate goal of “eliminating private dollars entirely from our federal elections”. That is why he will push for a constitutional amendment to take people’s rights out of the government’s path. During the 2020 election, more Americans made campaign donations than ever before, and millions of Americans made their voices heard through independent groups that represented them. The president wants to ban this civic engagement, which is protected by the First Amendment. Biden’s plan would prevent so-called external spending – speech by groups not controlled by candidates or parties. That term says everything you need to know about the mindset behind the plan. Since when are people out of our democracy? This, apparently, is the president’s vision of democracy: a machine for preserving the status quo in which those in power obtain a monopoly on political discourse, while people are mere spectators. Democrats in Congress introduced legislation to get us halfway there. HR 1 (S.1 in the Senate), takes aim in his “outside” voice, which Biden wants to silence. The bill also demonstrates how efforts to silence independent groups do not stop at the speech that urges other Americans to vote for or against candidates. HR 1’s provisions for “Interrupting Super PAC Coordination – Candidate” go far beyond super PACs and would capture speeches that have nothing to do with elections. Any organization that discusses policy issues can trigger comprehensive “coordination” standards. Communications about legislation routinely made by advocacy groups today would be illegal under HR 1. Say a civil rights group publishes an analysis highlighting areas of a criminal justice reform project that could be improved. The sponsor of the legislation comes to the group with questions. In the conversation, the senator comments that she intends to highlight the bill at an upcoming campaign event. Just like this, this political discussion has triggered a speech ban. The group is engaged in “communication. . . in relation to the candidate’s or committee’s campaign advertising, message, strategy, policy, voting, resource allocation, fundraising or other campaign activities. As a result, the group is prevented from spending a single cent on speech that “promotes or supports” the senator, “regardless of whether the communication expressly defends the election. . . of a candidate. ”This vague language applies to communications made at any time, not just around an election. Simply urging lawmakers to “support Senator Jane Doe’s Penal Reform Act” could be banned by HR 1. If the bill is pending 120 days before a general election with the senator on the ballot, the ban would apply to “a communication that refers to” the senator, even if not to promote or support the legislator. Like Biden’s plan, HR 1’s text states that, ultimately, “the Constitution must be amended” to control First Amendment freedoms. Separately, House Democrats recently reintroduced the “Democracy for All Amendment”, which would grant Congress unlimited power to “set reasonable limits on the collection and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections”. If Biden’s plan is any indication of what Democrats consider “reasonable limits”, then it can be assumed that the total elimination of campaign donations and independent speech is on the table. And again, don’t expect limits or prohibitions to stop in electoral defense. If HR 1 passes, Americans will certainly defend their rights in court. Proponents of the bill in Congress are likely to expect certain provisions to be overturned under the First Amendment, as was the case with the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act and the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold. They do not care. They will have another Citizens United to announce, a new “threat to democracy” for the day. The substance will not have to fulfill the rhetoric – after all, Citizens United, a case decided in 2010, overturned a federal law that resulted in a film ban on the then Democratic primary candidate, Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court decision was a blessing for freedom of political expression, while none of the predictions of the end of the world were fulfilled. And remember, Democratic congressmen have long supported a constitutional amendment that limits the rights of the First Amendment. Biden himself co-sponsored such an amendment in 1997. The rallying cry to “bring down Citizens United” is little more than a marketing tactic. Many elected officials believe that the people’s right to be heard in a democracy must begin and end the day you vote. Perhaps that is why they always warn that they intend to make voting “easier, not more difficult”. It is as if to say: “Here is your democracy, now shut up”.