Skip ahead to page content

entitlements.jpg

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment

January 22, 2010 | By Amanda J. Reinecker

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and appropriately struck down government prohibitions on many sorts of privately-funded political advertising. In doing so, Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, the court "upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate."

The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated as a question about campaign finance laws and whether they apply to an unflattering film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton. After the government argued that campaign finance laws could even lead to bans on books, the Court ordered a rare re-argument to address the broader constitutionality of limiting corporations' independent spending during federal election campaigns.

It was a question of "ancient First Amendment principles," the Court stated in its majority opinion. It is no coincidence that the rights to free speech and assembly are among the first mentioned in our Bill of Rights -- our Founders recognized that these rights are essential to the preservation of a free government.

"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold officials accountable to the people," Spakovsky argues. But the right to free speech is not limited to individual persons, he argues. For-profit and non-profit organizations are greatly "affected, damaged, or even lost" by the laws Congress passes, so there is "no rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent political activity."

Those who criticize the Court's 5-4 decision fail to recognize a key component about this critical First Principle: free speech "is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers," as Justice Scalia explained in a concurring opinion. It is a right that applies to all. To deny it to would be an obfuscation of the written law and a violation of a fundamental right.

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's first year

President Obama's first year in office represents a "downward trajectory from divinity to mortality," conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer told an audience of Heritage President Club members this week.

» Watch Krauthammer's entire Heritage address online at Heritage.org

» Learn more about membership in the President's Club, which includes invitations to future events and other special benefits.

Focusing his remarks primarily on the President's foreign policy, Krauthammer reviewed a year of failed soft-diplomacy initiatives, including the "apology tours" and concessions to unfriendly powers.

Continuing this "illusory foreign policy" poses grave consequences to our nation, Krauthammer explains:

It would constitute a gradual, American retreat. It will have inexorable consequences easily and succinctly stated when erstwhile allies begin to see the America umbrella beginning to be withdrawn, they will begin to accommodate themselves to those countries that we were protecting them from…[This approach to foreign policy will bring about ] the weakening of alliances; the strengthening of centers of adversarial power in Moscow, Beijing, Caracas, Tehran and elsewhere will continue at pace until some cataclysm wakes us up. Such are the wages of living in a virtual world. I pray we leave it soon."

Considered by Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes to be the "maker of 'Aha!' moments," Krauthammer has been a voice of reason about many of the administration's domestic and foreign policies.

Other Heritage Work of Note

  • Tens of thousands of Americans are marching in Washington, D.C. today to protest the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. Many of these protesters, Heritage scholar Chuck Donovan writes, are individuals "who have been helped by or volunteered in one of the nation's 2,300 pregnancy resource centers," which operate almost entirely without public funding.
  • Over the past year, the Obama administration has missed many opportunities to strengthen our national security in an increasingly dangerous world, writes Heritage expert Mackenzie Eaglen. Though the President appropriately stated that the war in Afghanistan is not optional, his plan falls short of success. In addition, the President's policies of engagement have sacrificed important foreign policy and military advantages, which down the line may have real national security consequences.

In Other News

Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.