HJR 171: Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee | Eastern North Carolina Now

For those who may not recall, the United decision reversed previous laws that banned independent political expenditures by corporations (including non-profits and unions)

ENCNow
   Publisher's note: This post, by Brian Balfour, was originally published in the in Bad Bill of the Week section of Civitas's online edition.

    This week's Bad Bill of the Week is actually a House Joint Resolution. HJR 171, crafted by Rep. Verla Insko (D-Orange), urges the NC General Assembly to draft a resolution opposing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to reverse the free speech rights protected by the United decision.

    For those who may not recall, the United decision reversed previous laws that banned independent political expenditures by corporations (including non-profits and unions). The expansion of free speech rights was met by liberal groups as some sort of "threat against democracy" - and Rep. Insko wants the U.S. Constitution amended to enshrine a permanent ban on free speech exercised by groups of individuals classified as "corporations."

    Opposition to the United decision, however, has nothing to do with preserving democracy or the voice of average citizens. Like most liberal/progressive issues, it has to do with control. In this case, liberal politicians want to control political speech by determining who gets to speak.

    Taken to its logical conclusion, those who want to ban political speech from corporations would prohibit book publishers from publishing books praising or critical of certain candidates.

    The answer to political speech you don't approve of is not to silence those speaking, but rather to counter with your own speech. A free society doesn't use government force to silence people.

    One final note, for those concerned about big money in politics: Take a look at the size of government. The larger the size and scope of government intrusion into our lives, the more is at stake for individuals and businesses alike. Government meddling creates the need for businesses and other groups to spend money to influence politicians in order to either gain political privileges or fend off harmful restrictions. Reducing the reach of government would drastically reduce the felt need for organizations to spend money on the political process.

    Because it would undermine one of the core principles of a free society - free speech - HJR 171 is this week's Bad Bill of the Week.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Tillman Time: WEEB radio shows The Pilot how this news reportin' stuff is DONE Civitas Institute, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics What liberals need to understand about 'Gun Guys/Gals'


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, admitted that he cheated on his first wife with the couple’s babysitter after a report was published on Saturday that said the marriage ended after he got the babysitter pregnant.
A black Georgia activist became the center of attention at a rally for former president Donald Trump on Saturday when she riled the crowd in support of Trump and how his policies benefit black Americans.
Former President has been indicted by a federal judge in Pennsylvania for inciting an assassination attempt that nearly killed him.
A federal judge ruled on Monday that Google has a monopoly over general search engine services, siding with the Justice Department and more than two dozen states that sued the tech company, alleging antitrust violations.
3 debates and Twitter interview
If we vote the way we have always voted we will get the kind of government we have always gotten
Check it out and see if you think this is an exhibit of Open Government

HbAD1

Acting U.S. Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe told reporters on Friday that his agency was fully responsible for the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump last month and that the agency “should have had eyes” on the roof where 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks.
Smartmatic was at center of voting machine controversy in US 2020 election
If we vote the way we have always voted we will get the kind of government we have always gotten
Shooter was identified on the roof with a weapon with enough time to stop him...but, officers were not prepared to access the roof

HbAD2

 
Back to Top