Protecting the First Amendment
"The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, ... the more easily they will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. - James Madison, Federalist No. 10.
Freedom of speech is such a dirty and messy business. It means that we must endure drivel of the stupid, the hate of the evil, and the bather of the ill-informed, as well as learn from the learned and bask the beauty of the poet. Sometimes the value of this tradeoff is not appreciated, but it remains the foundation of stable democracy. A broadly recognized discipline of tolerance for the speech of others is a necessary component for stable rule by the consent of the governed.
At the time of the American Revolution, the long-term stability of democracies was an open question. Relying on the experience of the Greeks, many believed that democracies could only be successful in relatively small communities where the values and interests could be homogeneous.
The genius of the American Founding was that it turned this notion exactly on its head. The greatest danger is tyranny. The Founders understood that large expansive democracies are more stable, because a diversity of interests insures that no single faction or interest could assume sole control. The Founders also understood that one could not rely on good motives. Freedom, especially freedom of speech and the press, and the structure of government outlined in the Constitution allow ambition to counter ambition.
Its therefore, with particularly poignancy that the end of this election cycle marks the beginning of the application of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002," the most ambitious attempt yet to regulate political expression. Champion of free speech, Senator Mitch McConnell is suing the Federal Election Commission over the constitutionality of the act. At this point, the case rests with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The case, however, will likely find its way the US Supreme Court for final adjudication.
This act is particular egregious in that it limits independent groups from running political adds within 60 days of an election - a time when political speech is perhaps most valuable and most deserving of broad protection.
Latest Articles