Appenzell
Switzerland |
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
|
|
|
|
Guest Editorial
Why the First Amendment?
Saturday, January 30, 2010 – by
Dr. Tibor Machan
Dr. Tibor Machan
It has puzzled me for some time why campaign contribution is considered a First Amendment constitutional issue. If I write out a check to some candidate, I am not talking, writing an essay, carrying some poster in a parade or anything that could be construed as speech or writing, so the freedom to speak or write is moot in this context. What I am doing is making use of my own money or resources and that, of course, in a bone fide free country everyone has the right to do. Like sending money to the Red Cross or Haiti's earthquake victims. This should all be considered under the protection to the right to private property. My money, therefore my decision how it will be used. Unless I use the money to violate someone's rights, there can be no objection to my use of it.
Suppose, now that I have started a company and others are voting stockholders in it and we have decided, by following faithfully the legal bylaws, to spend some of our resources on supporting some political measure or candidate. Why should this be anyone's business other than those whose funds are being used? Why, moreover, is this thought to be a first amendment issue? It has nothing to do with religious freedom, with writing editorials or books, or pamphlets that express some viewpoint. It is giving what belongs to us, the corporation -- that is to say, a bunch of incorporated free citizens with full rights recorded in the Constitution -- to the organization. And free men and women may not be barred from doing this.
I have heard it exclaimed that corporations are not individuals with rights. But why not? Corporations are established and maintained by individuals with rights, no different from teams or orchestras. I always think of these when this issue is raised -- surely those groups are composed of individuals with rights and thus when they make a collective decision voluntarily, they are exercising their individual rights. Can't see why not. And if we have some resources we have pooled among ourselves with which to conduct business and decide that some of the funds should be spent on making a contribution to some cause, political or otherwise, who in earth could have any just authority to stop us? No one.
And all this is a matter of property rights, like my giving my car to some group soliciting such "in kind" contributions (as many now are). Or giving it to some friend. When I do this I am exercising my right to private property -- doing what I choose to do with what belongs to me. And if I am part of a large group like a corporation, with all kinds of internal rules establishing how decisions about using and disposing the company's funds must be made, and these rules are followed, why would anyone from the outside get to have a say about where our funds may or may not go (so long as the recipient is no outlaw)?
All the fuss about the various US Supreme and other court rulings pertaining to campaign contributions would, I believe, subside once the matter were put into the right framework, namely, the exercise of the right to private property. It is not about free speech but about freedom to use what belongs to one as he or she -- or they -- see fit.
Maybe the reason this approach has been so widely ignored is that people who favor the freedom to be able to spend one's money how one wishes to do it lack confidence these days in the Constitutional status of the right to private property, a right only mentioned in the Fifth Amendment and implicit in several others that prohibit government to embark upon various intrusive policies -- unreasonable searches and seizures or the like. Sadly only the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution amounts to a flat out, nearly unambiguous statement of individual rights, comparable to what is found in the non-legal Declaration of Independence. So in order to secure the right of private property despite its neglect in the U.S. Constitution, supporters have decided to try to convert the First Amendment to one that defends private property rights. But this tactic has proven to be muddled and confusing and, ultimately, disingenuous.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
View Feedback
Posted by DRUNK AND DISORDERLY on 1/30/2010 7:34:12 AM
Puzzled? Maybe the professional bribers, aka political action committees, don't like amateur competition!
Posted by Wyz on 1/30/2010 2:10:08 PM
This editorial about the first amendment should have included the text of the first amendment as a supporting quote. Hope it is obvious why without my explanation.
Posted by Gregg on 1/30/2010 5:22:47 PM
I think this is an excellent point, but think that the idea that anything that a private person can do without infringing upon the private property rights of another, a voluntary association may do also do without infringing upon the rights of others, could be met with some argument. Petro, in his discussion of the relationship between voluntary associations and the state, points out that while it is true that no voluntary association can do something that would be illegal for an individual, the inverse is not necessarily true. He gives some examples that make the point clearly.In my view, the real root of the issue is what compels voluntary associations to back one candidate or party at all... it is the knowledge that by contribuiting to some political candidate that they may derive some benefit at the expense of the private property of another. If government restricted itself to its true function of preserving the peace, applying legal justice, and general security, there would certainly be no incentive for corporations to back any particular candidate for any reason other than they believed that he/she was best qualified. I certainly agree that weak protection of private property rights in the constitution is what allows this perversion to persist.
Posted by Floyd on 1/30/2010 5:52:44 PM
I may be wrong but I don't believe the authors of our constitution ever envisioned the stock market. Most players play the market for one reason, hopefully to increase their wealth. They never consider there might be a political aspect, nor in my opinion, should there be. Although I'm not a strong believer of strong regulations in most instances, when a company declares an IPO, numerous regulations, I'd rather call them rules, should be invoked.The greed thing overtake moral thinking and most could care less what the company does as long as he or she is making money. This, of course, includes CEO salaries in the millions etc. etc.. Therefore, If a company's elite wants to give money in support of a certain candidate, they should get permission to do so from the shareholders, by ballot, if necessary.This action would keep the shareholders informed and in the loop.
Posted by Anonymous on 1/30/2010 6:12:19 PM
Today marks the third feedback that has apparently been disqualified. I could understand it if you were deluged with feedback but two (2) posts?
It's your site so you have the right to refuse any feedback for any reason although I feel your a bit hypocritical when you state your purpose is to generate discussion.
In order to eliminate any further problems you may encounter trying to determine if my feedback is politically incorrect I will no longer (after this post) submit feedback. I would also like my email to be removed from your subscriber list.
You may post this but please do not post my name or email.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
We post all emails unless they are advocate violence or are obscene. If you send us your other emails, we will post them.
Posted by LAConfidential on 1/30/2010 7:00:32 PM
Yes - I agree!! Who says corruption should stop with the lobbyist firms giving monies to fill the coffers of the politicians seeking to keep their jobs (re-election)? I say as long as electing the politician should be a corrupt process, by all means - let the corporations seeking quid-pro-quo have a direct link to their political stooges. Stand up and show your corrupt selves!!!! Here Here!!!
Posted by Not Anti-military Per Se on 1/30/2010 8:14:36 PM
I need help please. I feel a little lost. It has not been hard to convince me of the evils of mercantilism as defined by The Daily Bell. The Bell's arguments are persuasive and certainly resonate at least from my humble world view.
Now I am puzzled, even confused by this tacit support for a supreme court ruling that over turns decades of case law and empowers corporations to further beholden lawmakers to themselves fortifying the corporate with monopolistic privilege endowed and enforced by government decree.
What am I missing hear please. Just when I was feeling good about my IQ too.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
The editorial you refer to is labelled as follows:
Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is pleased to provide its viewers with editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers. These may have been reprinted elsewhere and are NOT necessarily representative of Daily Bell editorial policy. The Bell itself is unapologetically free-market and its perspective tends toward absolute privatization of all money functions and unconstrained capitalism so long as the capitalistic enterprise is not in any way advantaged by government. Copyright to the author.
We are not responsible for the viewpoints of the talented editorialists that we provide to our readers. We try to state our case plainly in the staff reports that we offer throughout the week.
Posted by Ross Wolf on 1/31/2010 5:06:34 PM
Meanwhile Top Obama Czar Cass Sunstein Proposed Infiltrating all 'Conspiracy Theorists'
From a recent news report, it appears Obama CZAR Cass Sunstein, supports infiltrating and spying on Americans, their groups and organizations to obstruct Free Speech, disrupt the exchange of ideas and disseminate false information to neutralize Americans that might question government.
See: Click to View Link
Obama's CZAR's proposal appears to duplicate Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" HR 1955, introduced in 2007 that stressed disrupting political and other groups without evidence of wrongdoing.
Interestingly Obama refused to take a position on this bill. Rep. Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" was not written exactly like the Nazi 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Reich Constitution, but could bring America to the same place by trashing America's civil liberties.
The "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" when closely examined, defined "homegrown terrorism" as "any planned act" that might use force to coerce the U.S. Government or its people to promote or accomplish a "political or social objective."
No actual force need occur. Government need only charge that an individual or group 'Thought about doing it. This bill was passed by the House but later died in a Senate Committee after Americans became angry upon learning about it.
Could local, state and federal Fusion Centers provide information about law bidding Americans to a Secret Police State?
Currently"the U.S. Government has already laid the groundwork for the covert infiltration of Americans. Since 9/11 federal government has established across the nation a large number of Fusion Centers. Fusion Centers were originally established to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies.
But they have since expanded with encouragement of federal government to pursue all crimes and hazards. Fusion Centers now pursue for analysis not just criminal and terrorist information, but any information that can be derived from police, public records and private sector data about Americans.
Fusion Centers increasingly are involving components of the U.S. Military in addition to other government entities to spy on Citizens. The centers heavily rely on local informants for information that is shared with Local, State, and Federal police agencies.
Recently the Department of Homeland Security began sharing more classified military information with local Fusion Centers; perhaps a mistake, historically local police have not kept secrets. Because approximately 40 Fusion Centers appear to operate more independently than others, it is not possible to generalize the mission of Fusion Centers.
Some Fusion Centers however, take advantage of ambiguous lines of authority to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection.
Increasingly (private security companies and their operatives) work so closely with law enforcement and Fusion Centers"providing and exchanging information about Americans, they appear to merge with police. That is what happened in Germany during the 1930's when a private Gestapo merged its operations with German State Police.
Fusion Centers exchange information with select U.S. private sector companies; that has enabled Fusion Centers to escape accountability and public oversight.While the press on occasion has discussed Fusion Centers invading the privacy of Citizens, media missed Fusion Centers' involvement in criminal and civil asset forfeitures.
It was problematic law enforcement and private government contractors would gain wider access to Fusion Center data to secure evidence to arrest Americans and or civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws to keep part of the assets.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Our readers will appreciate this update.
Posted by Dr Philip McCormack on 2/4/2010 5:29:33 PM
Click to View Link Unequal risk of lawsuit.
A very clever piece of writing. This writing above explains precisely why campaign contributions are considered a First Amendment Issue. I cannot imagine an orchestra or a team combining their efforts to remove free speech or to bribe politicians; your suggestion that they have even a modicum of similarity is pathetic.
Corporate money is used again and again to stifle free speech of individuals and unfortunately very successfully. Read the above.
Posted by Jerry Welch , Author on 2/11/2010 9:23:44 PM
Lets say I own some stock in GE, or even better, I play for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think I would have any say what so ever on how the corporate elite spend my money(which I gave them when I purchased stock or when I worked for them on the team). In this world, voting stockholders do not make any decisions,especially when it comes to spending resources on politics. The decisions Mr Machan talks about are certainly not collective or voluntary except for CO's.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
|
News & Analysis
Guest Editorials
Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire
|
Exclusive Interviews
|
|
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Daily Bell website.
|
|
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6_207x100.gif)