Freedom of Money?

Readers of this blog will know I am a fierce critic of American political campaign finance laws. The problems stem from the interpretation of part of the First Amendment, which provides: “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech…”  The Oxford English Dictionary defines speech as “the act of speaking, the natural exercise of the vocal chords, the utterance of words or sentences, talk, speaking and discourse, the opportunity to speak and converse, and so on.” In this long definition, there is no mention whatsoever of money.

The philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, observed: “the limits of my language are the limits of my world.” He did not say anything about the limits of his money. In a succession of cases over the past twenty years or more, the Supreme Court has ruled that money equates to speech and that American citizens cannot be prevented from spending their money as they wish.

Not all politicians agree with this approach. Senator John McCain, President Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential election, co-sponsored the 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Act which outlawed so-called ‘soft money’ and Political Action Committees. It took only a short time before the Supreme Court nailed the Act, opening the election floodgates to PACS and ultimately permitting virtually unlimited funding from corporations and trades unions through what are now called SUPERPACS. Not long ago, Mayor Bloomberg was reported to have spent more than $100 million on one of his campaigns for Mayor of New York City. He spent his own money, by the way. This enormous sum now pales into insignificance compared with the amounts which are now being contributed towards political campaigns.

The 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United has loosened pretty well all campaign finance restrictions. Now, individual million-dollar donors are pursued by both political parties. Wealthy people are backing national politics to an extent never seen before. This week, The Washington Post alleged that the Republican National Committee has raised the top donation tier to $1.34 million. The Democrats have joined the band wagon, seeking $1.6 million from individuals to support the Party’s convention, as well as Mrs Clinton’s campaign. What do the donors get in return? On the record, they receive exclusive retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the conventions, and special dinners.

What else do they get? Arguably, the gratitude of politicians to the uber-wealthy, gratitude which might convert into tax breaks, political career advancement, and introduction of policies to the advantage of the very few and the expense of others.

The Koch brothers have made significant financial contributions to libertarian and conservative think tanks and campaigns. They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and that lobby against efforts to expand government's role in health care and combat global warming. The latter is hardly surprising as the basis of their wealth is in oil. By 2012, the brothers reportedly donated more than $100 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations. What did they want in exchange? All we know is the party they support did not get into the White House but Congress was a different matter.

It is hard to assess the influence the new funding landscape will have on next year’s election. Perhaps things have not changed at all since the founding of the republic, except for the extraordinary higher amounts of money which will be applied to the fights both for the White House and for Congress. After all, the system of using political parties as vehicles to launder the buying and selling of government influence and decisions, not to mention political favors, is not new. It goes back to President Washington’s time. I suspect the patronage system would remain in place even if soft money was eliminated entirely from American politics and the amounts which an individual or corporation or trades union were fully regulated.

What I believe Americans should ask themselves is how the democratic ideal of equality is being served if a voter can spend anything he likes on supporting political candidates? The obvious link is the more a voter sends, the better is his chance of patronage. How is the much vaunted ideal of freedom enhanced by letting super-wealthy people have access to those who can help advance their political thoughts and desires to the detriment of those who cannot afford such influence? Is this a fair and just system?

To be more exact, are there circumstances where an individual would advance millions of dollars towards a political campaign because of altruism and love of what the party stood for? No, I didn’t think so. Money is not speech. Indeed one of the definitions of money is “to supply with money, hence bribery.” I am obliged to the Oxford English Dictionary for making my case.

The Price for Freedom of Speech.

Katie Hopkins is a name that may not be familiar to Americans. She first came to prominence in 2007, when she reached the final of the UK version of reality television show, The Apprentice, and then turned down competing in the final. She is now a columnist for The Sun newspaper. Katie does not conform to PC conventions. Supposedly, she champions the spirit of hard working Britain, delivering a strong take on employment, business, mothers, lifestyle and politics. However, she has a very unpleasant side. Earlier this year, Ms Hopkins wrote a column comparing migrants to "cockroaches" and "feral humans" and said these people were "spreading like the norovirus". She also branded Helen Mirren as “Dame Miserable.” Hopkins has been often criticized in the media and by both advocacy groups and politicians for her shocking comments but she argues she has the right of freedom of speech.

America’s Hopkins is Ann Coulter. She is angry, mean and arguably one of the most the most hated women in the USA. She is a conservative social and political commentator and writer. She often appears on Fox News, a bastion of right wing, white America. But does what Coulter writes and says deserve the protection of ‘freedom of speech’?

Let me give you some Coulter examples. On Mexicans: “If you don’t want to be killed by Isis, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you.” On Jews: “I want Jews to convert to Christianity. I don’t want a world without Jews, I just want them to be perfected.” On Muslims: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Many people suffer from disability. In 2012, Coulter called President Obama a “retard.” When criticized by people with disabilities for this remark, her response was, “oh, screw them.”  Her latest book is entitled ‘Adios America!’ I hope any sequel is titled ‘Adios Ann.’

Donald Trump has bought into the ‘be nasty’ medium. He delights in making personal remarks, not merely about his fellow candidates but about their wives. He castigates people who are fat or ugly or a different skin colour. I believe he is running his political campaign based on his TV show. And according to the polls, Americans are lapping it up, as are the television networks. In the film Network, the lead presenter says to his audience, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not taking it anymore.” If only the American public would say this to Trump, Coulter and others of their ilk.

Why is it that people who publish in a gratuitously offensive manner earn not just notoriety but popularity, fame, wealth and the trappings that go with such appalling actions? When did being obnoxious become such good copy? I have met so many journalists and media news people who believe in ‘fair and balanced reporting’ and who were diametrically opposed to gutter journalism. The late Ben Bradlee never offended anyone in public life, nor published the story unless and until he had the evidence from more than one source. David Broder, a political correspondent par excellence, always wrote both sides of the story. Elmer Lower, the man whose brainchild was the 1960 Presidential Debate between Nixon and Kennedy, would never have sanctioned a television columnist or pundit who insulted races, religionists or a disadvantaged section of society. All these journalists would offer a target of their stories a right of response, something La Coulter never does.

America has weak defamation laws. Anyone in public life is fair game. The private citizen has weak protections, and lobby groups like The American Civil Liberties Union will be lined up to protect speech freedom. The ACLU exists to ensure The First Amendment to the American Constitution is upheld. Might I remind you that the amendment: “prohibits the making of any law… abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press ...”  

In the UK, we enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press but our defamation laws are strong and the press is looking down the barrel of potential legislative sanctions following numerous behavioural scandals, mainly in the Murdoch press empire.

It is difficult to understand why Americans in their droves expressed disgust when, for example, Janet Jackson’s nipple was inadvertently exposed briefly in a Super Bowl half time show. Some closed-minded states insist that creationism be taught as a science alongside Darwin’s evolution theory. It is now PC to protect school children from competition despite its existence in the real world. I suspect these same people can be tolerant of shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh and opinionated columnists like Coulter who demonise whole elements of society merely because they are different. The inconsistency, if not hypocrisy of this stance is difficult to justify.

Thomas Jefferson, a man conflicted if ever there was one, who owned slaves yet declared the right of people to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” also defended press freedom. He wrote, “The only security of all is in a free press,” despite the fact he was often the target of hostile journalism. I fear Jefferson is right. The best way to defeat Coulter and her ilk is not to watch her, not to listen to her and not to read her words.

PS. Last night, Secretary of State John Kerry announced America will over a two year period accept 85,000 refugees for re-settlement in the light of the Syrian crisis. Will La Coulter tell her readers that America already accepts 70,000 refugees each year? I suspect she will feed her public with a diet of vitriol and untruths.

Hillary and the Apple Cart

Almost from the day of President Obama’s re-election in November, 2012, Mrs Clinton has been the clear Democratic front-runner for 2016. She has had no serious challenger in her own party until recently. Much is being made that Bernie Sanders is polling well in New Hampshire and Iowa. This is what you would expect from a liberal contender in these states. The race will narrow as the primary season gets closer. The Republicans have not yet fixed on an opponent who will give Hillary a run for her money, unless you believe Donald Trump will make a viable candidate.

However, in typical Clinton fashion, an apple cart has been upset by the candidate herself. A few months ago, it was disclosed that during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, she used a private e-mail server which may, or may not, have been used by her to send classified information.

The American media has gone wild because it smells scandal. The pro-Hillary tribe proclaims her innocence, pointing to her denial last March that she “did not e-mail any classified material on my e-mail,” all 55,000 pages of it. The anti-Hillary destruction crew say the contrary must be the case. They point to a report by the Inspector General of the intelligence community who concluded that, after examining a small number of the private e-mails, on at least four occasions classified information was sent and that potentially hundreds of classified e-mails had been sent.

In April this year, retired US army General David Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $100,000 for sharing highly classified information with his biographer (and lover), Paula Broadwell. According to Anne Tomkins, the US attorney who oversaw the Petraeus prosecution, there is no comparison between the two cases. General Petraeus admitted that he knew what he was doing, whereas Hillary did not. Quite how Ms Tomkins reaches such a conclusion has not been explained. Last week, Mrs Clinton said, “It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email.” In this carefully worded way, Mrs Clinton has apologised for her private e-mail arrangement.

I don’t believe this apology will be enough to get Mrs Clinton out of trouble. There is a Watergate feel to what is happening. In 1972, Nixon and his advisers believed the Watergate burglary problems would be solved through a PR initiative. By the time Nixon realised that Watergate’s political and legal issues were paramount, it was too late to save his Presidency.

It is almost six months since the existence of the private server was made public. The FBI says its investigation is not complete. Sources within the FBI say it is a criminal probe. The Clinton camp say the probe is civil and fact-finding in nature. They continue to handle the situation by making PR offensives which, presumably, they hope will make the problem go away. What has happened to the famous Clinton antennae?

Instead of trying to win a PR battle, Mrs Clinton should recognise she has a political calamity on her hands. She should call for the FBI to put up or shut up and seek a speedy trial. She can accuse her investigators of playing politics by the delay as it will interfere with her White House run. She should demand specimen charges be brought against her now or the matter should be dropped. If Mrs Clinton is prosecuted and found guilty and fined before the primaries start, she should pay and be done with, after making a fulsome apology to the voters.

The potential ramifications are huge. There is already a lot of mud that can be thrown at Hillary. Her billing record at the Rose Law firm, the Whitewater fiasco, her failure to make progress in Congress with healthcare legislation, the unauthorised removal of furniture from the White House in 2000 when the Clintons left and the Benghazi fiasco when she was Secretary of State. Add to this the suspicion amongst many American voters that she cannot be trusted to tell the truth, all will be ammunition for the Republicans after they settle on their presidential candidate.

By letting Servergate drag, Mrs Clinton is allowing upset apple cart to grow legs. If she is not prosecuted, talking heads at Fox News will, no doubt, accuse the Attorney General of interfering with a criminal investigation and countermanding an FBI decision. Possibly, the President might be accused of directing the AG to abandon a prosecution, which he has power to do, and face a Republican Congressional initiative for impeachment for failing “faithfully to defend the Constitution.”

Should Mrs Clinton be prosecuted, that is not necessarily an end to her campaign. Republican hopeful Rick Perry was been indicted for abuse of power but has only just removed himself from the race for the Republican nomination. I think he took this action not because of the prosecution but because he could no longer adequately finance his run. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Democratic candidate John Edwards was prosecuted for violating campaign contribution laws. The prosecution did not force him out of the race. It was his marital infidelity that ended his run. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is being investigated over alleged campaign contributions yet he remains in the Republican race.

If Mrs Clinton takes the steps I advocate and loses her fight in court, she will know the American public likes a fighter, especially one who comes back after a loss. After all, her husband was known as “the Comeback Kid.” However, what voters will not like is a person who upsets an apple cart and leaves it to others to clear up the mess.