At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions

The following article originally was published February 1 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

At least Dan Maes answered the questions

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently the Supreme Court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold censorship law in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision is tragic because the Court only partially restored the First Amendment, and apparently four of the justices cannot comprehend the simple phrase, "Congress shall make no law..."

Leftist critics of the ruling argue that, while a lone individual might have some rights to free speech, individuals do not have the right to freely associate to express themselves. Further, these critics claim, you have no firm right to spend your own money on expression.

To grasp the left's hypocrisy on finances, just ask a critic of the ruling whether the right to get an abortion would be preserved if women and clinics were forbidden from spending money on abortions. (Eugene Volokh raised this point.)

Regarding this case the left is perfectly consistent with its Marxist roots. Marx wrote, "The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

In simpler terms, you are just too stupid to independently evaluate a film or ad funded by a corporation. You need the benevolent nannies of the left to help you think straight.

Unfortunately, some people do everything they can to prove Marx right. They thoughtlessly buy junk just because the idiot box or their friends tell them to. They never read great books or otherwise develop their reasoning skills. They vote for candidates based on appearance, smooth talk, and hysterical smear campaigns against the other guy.

However, trying to save people from their own stupidity only entrenches stupidity. People cannot choose wisely if they lack the capacity to choose badly. In terms of free speech, people must be free to say and believe stupid things, if we wish to preserve the right and ability to say and believe profundities.

The law properly guards against fraudulent speech. You can't legally tell someone a used car has only ten thousand miles on it when it actually has a hundred thousand. Nor can you make up lies about a candidate. Established law already addresses such matters.

Aside from libel, however, people should be free to say whatever they want about candidates (using their own resources), whenever they want, and with whomever they want. That is precisely what the First Amendment is all about.

We can't blame bad government on advertisements. After all, smear campaigns work only if voters fail to critically judge them. It is you, the individual voter, who must carefully evaluate claims, do some background research, and seek the broader context. If you fail to do so, censorship laws will not save the republic but will only further erode its foundation.

Let us make 2010 the year when candidates articulate their views on the issues and voters decide accordingly. Let us make this election about ideas, principles, and policies, not hair dye, cowboy hats, and vocal timbre.

It is in this spirit that we introduced our Candidate Survey, found at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10. Unfortunately, as of our deadline, we had heard from only two candidates running for governor or U.S. Senate. Dan Maes, the Republican challenger to Scott McInnis, said he'd answer the survey and followed through on his word. We also heard from independent candidate Rich Hand. You can find their responses linked from the original survey.

Though we originally contacted all the major-party candidates (or their representatives) for those offices by January 13, our initial correspondence did not make it to the right parties in the case of McInnis and Democratic top gun John Hickenlooper. While representatives of both candidates have now confirmed receipt of the survey, they have not committed to answering it. We encourage readers to ask these candidates to answer the survey.

Maes is the underdog, and we disagree with a number of his views. Generally, though, we are impressed by his responsiveness, straight talk, sincerity, and hard work.

Maes is a pretty solid fiscal conservative. He thinks the state should cut taxes and permit the traditional energy industry to thrive (thereby also increasing the tax flow from energy). He is too unfriendly to immigrants in our view. Disappointingly, he said campaign censorship laws should be "maintained," and he thinks flag desecration should be Constitutionally outlawed.

Most disturbing is Maes endorsement of the "personhood" measure, which if fully implemented would outlaw nearly all abortions, outlaw common forms of birth control, restrict fertility treatments, and subject women to severe legal interference.

Maes also punted on several questions. For example, we asked, "Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?" Maes answered, "It already is." Cute. Perhaps Maes would care to answer the question next time: what does he think the law should say?

At least Maes answered (most of) the questions. That's a start.

Clear the Censorship

I am utterly astounded that so many Colorado "conservatives" endorse censorship. Let's get this straight, friends: if you endorse censorship, you are an enemy of liberty. This is just not a negotiable issue.

Amendment 54, a campaign censorship law passed by (bare) majority last year, thankfully has been suspended by a Denver court. This is not a surprise, given the measure violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and contradicts Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, which states:

Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

This is hardly ambiguous text.

I was therefore surprised to read an article at Clear the Bench Colorado endorsing Amendment 54. The article reminds us that the measure "passed by a vote of the citizens of Colorado." So what? Since when do Republicans endorse pure democracy? The entire point of constitutional government is to protect individual rights from mob rule.

Here is the central argument from Clear the Bench:

Once again, a judge has acted on the behalf of special interest groups intent on "gaining favor and contracts from public officials" through political contributions -- "probably triggering a flood of campaign contributions" from those seeking to curry favor while the 'temporary injunction' remains in effect.

The same argument could apply to McCain-Feingold. Does Clear the Bench also endorse the federal censorship law and decry the Supreme Court's limitation of it?

The purpose of Amendment 54 (now part of Article 28 of the Colorado Constitution) is to prevent recipients of no-bid government contracts from contributing to campaigns. The reasoning behind the restriction is obvious enough: people who benefit from tax dollars ought not influence the spending of those tax dollars. But while that reasoning points to a legitimate problem, it does not justify censorship.

With governments at all levels spending so much money through forced wealth transfers -- about 45 percent of the total economy -- political pull is just the way things operate. The only real way to solve that problem is to cut government spending and restore a free market. Until that happens, campaign censorship laws only further violate our rights without addressing the fundamental problem.

At a less fundamental level, if there is a problem particularly with no-bid contracts, then the solution is to restrict or eliminate no-bid contracts (and open contracts to bidding).

If we were to extend the argument that people who receive government funds should be censored, that would apply also to every student who takes government-backed loans, every senior citizen who accepts Social Security or Medicare, every employee and contractor of the government, and so on. In other words, given today's mixed economy and high rate of government spending, the logical conclusion of Amendment 54 is near-universal censorship.

Amendment 54 is shockingly broad; its limitations extend far beyond any direct connection between a no-bid contract and related taxes. Consider the details:

* Amendment 54 prevents contractors, "for the duration of the contract and for two years thereafter," from contributing to any political party or state or local candidate. There need be absolutely no connection between the political race and the contract.

* A contractor cannot "induce by any means" a campaign contribution "on behalf of his or her immediate family member." An "immediate family member" is defined as "any spouse, child, spouse's child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, niece, nephew, guardian, or domestic partner." In other words, a contractor cannot seek to persuade these people that they ought to financially support any candidate. To be enforced, the measure requires thought police.

* The measure also prohibits campaigns from "intentionally" accepting funds proscribed by the measure. What is "intentional?" How is that proved? What this does is allow big-moneyed interests to go after candidates they don't like, discouraging potential candidates who can't afford a team of lawyers from running.

Amendment 54 is bad law. It is unjust law. It is unconstitutional law. It deserves to be thrown out.

Conservatives need to learn that the opposite of "judicial activism" is not mob rule. Judges play a legitimate role in protecting the rights of the individual from the whims of the majority.

It is a shame that Clear the Bench, which has undertaken a good and noble cause in advocating courts that uphold the rule of law, has muddied the waters by endorsing censorship. Let's hope that organization and conservatives more broadly correct that failing.

Around Colorado: May 4, 2009

Arvada's Economic Non-Development

Now this is investigative reporting: Face the State published an article titled, "Arvada Redevelopment Project Sits Mostly Vacant, Costing Taxpayers Nearly $800,000."

The article begins:

After the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority condemned and forcibly acquired an elderly small business owner's property in 2004, the land was transferred to a private developer who was given the property free of charge. Now city leaders and other project supporters are lauding the project with awards, despite the fact that the new development sits mostly vacant. The total tab to taxpayers thus far is estimated at nearly $800,000 and counting.

Governments, including city governments, simply should not be in the business of "economic redevelopment." Such central economic planning invariably employs political force through eminent domain, zoning, or taxation. Politicians can't ably plan the economy. Leave that to free individuals working together voluntarily with their own resources. What city officials can and should do is get out of the way of economic progress.


Fake Free Speech

In a predictably wishy-washy editorial, the Denver Post worries about the FCC's ability to fine stations for "fleeting expletives," but adds, "We believe that protecting children from adult programming and swear words is important..."

Parents who wish to protect their children from naughty words are perfectly free to do so. They can choose whether to purchase a television or radio and whether to leave it turned on to any particular station.

The FCC, properly called the Federal Censorship Commission, should be completely disbanded.


'Job Creation Bills'

The Associated Press claims that Governor "Bill Ritter is preparing to sign two of the top job-creation and business-development bills this session." A centerpiece of the legislation is granting "businesses that create at least 20 jobs" tax breaks.

But if giving businesses tax breaks creates jobs, then doesn't taxing all other businesses destroy jobs, damage the economy, lower wages, and increases prices on consumer goods? Of course it does. But, somehow, when Ritter signs a $17.9 billion state budget, he doesn't describe that as the "economy-crushing bill."

Also, why is it great to generate twenty jobs but not, say, nineteen? Isn't it better if two companies each create fifteen jobs than if one company creates twenty? Yet the discriminatory taxes will punish the two smaller businesses and give the larger business a break. Because, under Colorado tax law, some tax payers are more equal than others.


Clear the Bench

Matt Arnold has set up a new organization called Clear the Bench Colorado, an effort to urge voters to decline to retain the four State Supreme Court justices up for vote next year.

In an April 29 speech, Arnold explained why this is an important opportunity to vote against the taxpayer-hating Supreme Court.

Criminal Libel Makes Bad Law

Vincent Carroll describes a recent case of criminal libel, then concludes:

[J.P.] Weichel [of Loveland] may not be a very nice guy, but the answer isn't to put him in jail for speech that doesn't endanger a soul. If what he said was false, then the victims should sue him for libel.

But leave the district attorney out of it.

It is a horribly written, nonobjective law:

18-13-105. Criminal libel.

(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.

Notice that the law expressly allows the possibility of true "libel," though the more common sense of the term implies that a libelous statement is false. The first paragraph contains no test of truth.

We have every right -- and indeed a moral responsibility -- to "blacken the memory" of bad people who have died, as well as to impeach the reputations of the living insofar as they negatively impact the culture or polity.

Colorado's criminal libel statute is an affront not only to free speech but to justice.

I hereby publicly declare that the politicians who supported the passage of this statute thereby violated liberty and justice and implemented an idiotic law. My express purpose here is to "blacken the memory" of those politicians. I further publicly declare that among the "natural defects" of Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson, who filed charges against Weichel, is a willingness to trample liberty and justice, insofar as he sanctions the criminal libel statute. I intend here to impeach his reputation, and I heartily encourage the public to heap upon him hatred, contempt, and ridicule for this case.

(While I hate to follow such a diatribe with a magnanimous note, Abrahamson may have inadvertently performed a public service by again bringing this unjust law to public light and giving the 2009 legislature another opportunity to repeal it. Now all Abrahamson needs to do to restore his reputation is to testify for the law's repeal.)

Time to Speak Out for Free Speech

The following article originally was published on October 27, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press. Links have been added here. See also "Eric Daniels Defends Free Speech."

Time to speak out for free speech

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Free speech is under assault in America by state and federal governments, despite constitutional protections.

Both major presidential candidates are enemies of free speech. In 2002, John McCain rode the McCain-Feingold campaign censorship law through Congress. Among other things, the law prohibited select groups from running certain political ads before elections, though the Supreme Court struck down some of the worst parts of the law. Barack Obama wants federal controls on media ownership, his spokesperson told Broadcasting & Cable.

Some conservatives want more censorship over pornography. Many on the left call for censorship of the radio by forcing broadcasters to air certain views; supporters laughably call their scheme the "Fairness Doctrine."

Here in Colorado, various activists have faced legal threats for daring to exercise their rights of free speech. For example, in 2006 Becky Clark Cornwell put up yard signs and protested a plan to annex her community of Parker North into the city of Parker in Douglas County.

A supporter of annexation filed a legal complaint against Cornwell and others, claiming they had engaged in "illegal activities" under Colorado's campaign censorship laws.

Lisa Knepper of the Institute for Justice (IJ), a civil rights group that defended Cornwell and her neighbors, said that, while the U.S. District Court ruled the group could not be penalized, the court "failed to change the law to prevent such abuses of campaign finance law in the future, so we're appealing to the 10th Circuit."

ABC's 20/20 featured Cornwell in an October 17 story about the campaign finance laws. Cornwell said "the lawsuit was used in an effort to shut us up about the annexation, to scare us enough and clobber us with these laws so that we wouldn't talk about it any more."

20/20 paid people to try to fill out Colorado's campaign forms. Nobody did so successfully. One subject said, "A regular citizen cannot read this legalese." Another said, "I'd rather just not get involved in the political process if I have to go through the nonsense that I had to go through today."

Steve Simpson, the IJ lawyer defending the Parker North residents, said he's also defending the Independence Institute, which was sued over its criticisms of Referenda C and D in 2005. Simpson is awaiting a decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals. He said "it would be impossible" for the Independence Institute, a think tank, to comply with the reporting requirements as an issue committee, because the group gets funds for general purposes and spends them on a wide variety of issues.

Even though we've condemned Amendment 48, which would absurdly define a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution, we were displeased to see that a fellow named John Erhardt sued the Amendment 48 campaign for petty violations of the campaign censorship laws. Erhardt gloats on his blog, "So, while the fine of $150 won't break their campaign, they did have to spin their wheels to defend this."

Diana Hsieh, co-author of the paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us, said the advocates of 48 "should be free to advocate their views -- not bogged down in opportunistic legal action by opponents... I want opponents of Amendment 48 to be spending their time arguing against the substance and philosophy of it, not playing campaign finance dirty tricks."

Finally, Douglas Bruce has taken flak in the media [one and two] for mailing a flyer against Amendment 59 and Referendum O through a nonprofit group, Active Citizens Together, without filing the legal paperwork that some think applies.

It's past time to rethink the validity of the campaign censorship laws, along with all the other restrictions on free speech. We checked in with Eric Daniels of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, and he offered a refreshingly consistent defense of our rights.

Daniels said, "Free speech means the right (not privilege) of individuals to express their opinions without government censorship of any kind, whether by hindering speech through regulation or through restricting it through prosecutions after the fact."

We don't even like requirements to report contributions. People have a right to speak anonymously. There's no clear way to distinguish between advocacy and education. And, the voters can demand disclosure with their votes.

Daniels agrees: "If politicians wish to disclose the source of their financing to the public, they are free to do so... The electorate can indeed decide through voting whether to support candidates who do or do not disclose their financing. Contributing money to a political candidate or to supporters or opponents of a ballot measure should properly be a matter between the private parties themselves."

Government should not abridge "the freedom of speech, or of the press." Politicians have gotten away with doing just that for far too long. If we wish to retain and restore our other liberties, we must above all fight for our rights of free speech.

Eric Daniels Defends Free Speech

Linn Armstrong and I are coming out with a column on free speech this Monday; see Grand Junction's Free Press. We quote Eric Daniels, Research Assistant Professor at the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. Unfortunately, we had space only for a few of Daniels's comments. Thankfully, he has agreed to let me reproduce the entire interview here.

My purpose in contacting Daniels was not to cover familiar ground, but to elicit responses about some of the most difficult implications of free speech. Until I thought more carefully about the matter on October 23, talked with another friend about it, and contacted Daniels, I wasn't sure about my position on the matters of campaign-finance disclosure and campaigns by foreigners. Now I am sure. I am for freedom, not controls.

Daniels's answers follow the questions in bold:

Briefly, why do you think free speech has come under attack by both right and left in recent decades?

Fundamentally, the reason free speech is under attack by both is because both fail to understand the nature of individual rights. The majority opinion in politics today holds that rights are gifts from the government that allow individuals to do some things as long as they do not upset certain vested interests. In the case of free speech, politicians believe that you should
be allowed to say what you want as long as it does not, for example, offend religious or ethnic groups or as long as what you say is not backed by too much money, or as long as what you say meets some vague notion of community standards. But that is not free speech. Free speech means the right (not privilege) of individuals to express their opinions without government
censorship of any kind, whether by hindering speech through regulation or through restricting it through prosecutions after the fact.

Should the law require disclosure of campaign-related expenses? I'm leaning no. People have a right to speak anonymously. There's no clear way to distinguish between advocacy and education. And, the voters can demand disclosure with their votes. Do you agree with this? Explain.

I do not think the law should require public disclosure of campaign-related financing. If politicians wish to disclose the source of their financing to the public, they are free to do so. Likewise, if they choose to keep their donors' identities to themselves, they should also be free to do so. The electorate can indeed decide through voting whether to support candidates who do or do not disclose their financing. Contributing money to a political candidate or to supporters or opponents of a ballot measure should properly be a matter between the private parties themselves. It does not matter how much a person gives or how much air time he buys, voters always remain free to take the message for which he has paid in the appropriate context. No one
forces the voters to believe or discredit any given message, they do so of their own will.

Should the law prohibit campaign contributions from foreign entities and people? For instance (Diana Hsieh raised this example), if the U.S. were going impose a tariff on British goods, should British citizens be able to campaign against it in the U.S.?

Giving money to a political campaign is an issue of individual right -- that is, the donor who has earned his wealth has a right to give it to whatever candidate he chooses, and the candidate has a right to accept money from anyone he chooses. Foreign citizens or political action committees have just as much right to speak as do Americans. Again, if there is some belief on the
part of voters that foreign influence is unduly affecting some candidate, the voters retain the right to demand that the candidate disclose the source of his funding or face losing their votes.

Is there anything else we should know about free speech in the modern era?

Even though much of the recent controversy about free speech is tied to speech about political issues, it is important to remember that we have the freedom of speech not just because it facilitates a robust discussion of public policy
(which is the unfortunate modern interpretation), but because it is a right of each individual to express his ideas in the manner he chooses and to reach whatever size an audience his rightly-earned wealth will allow.

20/20 Reveals Free Speech Violations

20/20 ran a powerful segment on campaign censorship laws. Becky Clark, a Coloradan who was sued for putting up yard signs and getting politically active in her community, is featured in the segment. The upshot is that the laws benefit insiders and raise hurdles for true grass-roots activism. These laws are unjust, and they must be repealed.

Update: I've since learned that her full name is Becky Clark Cornwell. Earlier this year, she wrote a Speakout for the Rocky Mountain News about her ordeal.

ABC News has also published John Stossel's review of campaign finance laws.

Becky Clark's Fight for Free Speech

Gus Van Horn alerted me to an important Colorado story that, somehow, I'd missed till now. Becky Clark got sued for exercising her right of free speech without filling out the right bureaucratic forms.

While I have not independently checked her story yet, Clark tells a fascinating tale:

Way back in the early part of 2006 our little unincorporated neighborhood of about 300 houses in Parker, Colorado was all abuzz over the efforts of two of our neighbors who thought it would be a good idea to annex into the town. After my husband and I studied the facts and talked to our neighbors, we decided we were against annexation for a variety of reasons, the most important to us being the huge sales tax increase we'd be hit with.

So, because we own a printshop and can make signs, we made a couple that said "No Annexation" and "Annexation is a permanent tax increase" and planted them in our front yard.

Our neighbors kept stopping by asking if we'd make some for them, so we did. Pretty soon the neighborhood was filled with these signs and it was pretty clear most everyone held the same opinion that we did. ...

[In July] six of us, and our printshop, were slapped with a lawsuit by two of our neighbors, the two who were for the annexation. ...

They said we were not in compliance with campaign finance laws and we needed to register as an issue committee. I had no idea what that meant and I'd never even heard the phrase "issue committee" before. ...

They wanted to shut us up. The litigation was clearly an attempt to intimidate us.

We had no choice but to file as an issue committee... It fell to me to do the paperwork, and let me tell you, it's no picnic. ...

These campaign finance laws need to be changed so no one can try to shut up the people who oppose them. After all, free speech -- to me -- is the free exchange of differing ideas and the right to voice them without the fear of harassment and intimidation.

What has happened to our society that people are so threatened by an honest difference of opinion that they can file suit against anyone who speaks with an opposing voice?

I think I should be able to stick a political sign in my front yard without my neighbors slapping a lawsuit on me. And I think you should be able to also.

In a follow-up, Clark talks about "September 2008 when the judge finally ruled on our lawsuit. The federal judge said we should not have been sued for our speech opposing the annexation, BUT the ruling did nothing to stop future abuses of campaign finance laws in Colorado or elsewhere. The decision also lets stand the burdensome red tape required under Colorado law for grassroots groups that simply want to speak out about issues on the ballot."

Clark also reports that she's been interviewed by 20/20 for a story that will air October 17.

Stay tuned. I need to read a lot more about the details of this case, but so far Clark's account squares with my understanding of Colorado's campaign finance laws. Could Clark be to free speech what Kelo was to property rights?

Can you imagine somebody like Sam Adams filing "issue committee" paperwork with the government?

Who'd have thought that America's Republican candidate for president would join forces with the socialist left to impose censorship -- or that the American people would let them get away with it.

A Problem with Tax-Funded Libraries

Ben Boychuk takes on the smear that Palin was a book banner in today's Rocky Mountain News. I am taking the facts he reports at face value:

What could possibly inspire such vitriol? A 12-year-old controversy, in which Palin, the newly elected mayor of Wasilla, asked city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons at least three times how she would feel if asked to remove objectionable books from library shelves. Naturally, Emmons said she would refuse. A few months later, Palin asked for Emmons' resignation. The new mayor said she felt Emmons, who had been appointed by Palin's predecessor and political rival, didn't fully support her agenda and should step aside. But Palin made no mention of book banning in her demand for the librarian's resignation. ...

Palin insisted her questions about pulling controversial books from the library shelves were "rhetorical" and had to do with clarifying city policy. ... The worst one could infer is that Palin raised the censorship issue in an ill-advised effort to appease some constituents, met resistance and let the matter drop to pursue more mundane city business. Emmons and Palin's other political enemies are free to speculate and impugn motives all they want. But results matter. And the bottom line is, Palin didn't ban anything.

This story illustrates a problem with spending tax dollars on libraries. Of necessity libraries must be selective in their purchases. They must implement some criteria for buying books and other items. (How a copy of the horrible Catwoman movie ended up on the shelves of my local library remains a mystery.) Thus, a library is bound to conflict with the values of many funders much of the time, in both its selections and omissions. Notably, a book a library doesn't buy can't be removed from the shelves, so it can't be "censored." But whether a book is not purchased or removed, it's still not available there.

On a free market, who makes these decisions? Presumably most libraries would be nonprofit corporations with boards of directors. People would be free to fund, or abstain from funding, the library. By sending their money voluntarily to the library, funders would agree to put certain decisions in the hands of the library's directors. Of course, people could fund particular books or broader selections.

Tax-funded libraries obscure the distinction between a library's legitimate selection process and government censorship. Properly, censorship is defined as the forcible restriction of speech by government. But a tax-funded library automatically employs force to select and omit books. This inherently violates the rights of those forced to fund the library who would not otherwise choose to do so. By forcing some people to fund material that they find objectionable, tax-funded libraries violate their freedom of conscience.

This illustrates a pattern among the left. They cry for political involvement in various institutions, then they whine when -- surprise, surprise -- politicians have control over those institutions. While Palin's interference with the local library is questionable, the problem was created by those who insist on making libraries political institutions.

How Obama Lost Another Vote

The following article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press on July 21, 2008.

How Obama lost another vote

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We write as a father-son team. We almost always agree about fundamental issues, yet sometimes we look askew at each others' strategies.

For example, last month Ari wrote on his blog (FreeColorado.com for June 6), "I deem that McCain is the worst evil in the race, and therefore I've decided to mark my ballot for Obama as the strongest possible vote against McCain." Such a position is sacrilege to much of the family.

What's so bad about McCain? Ari's post reviews three main flaws. McCain snubbed the First Amendment with his campaign censorship law, saying he wants to violate our "quote, First Amendment rights" for his version of "clean government." We wouldn't want politics mucked up with all that liberty.

He pushes for faith-based politics and declares his support for "ending abortion." And he humbly requests that you "sacrifice your life" to the state. (Where this involves military conflict, we're reminded of Patton's advice about which side we should get to sacrifice their lives.)

We agree about McCain's flaws. We may disagree about what to do about them, but we now agree that voting for Obama is not the answer. Why the change? In brief, Obama proposes new political controls over our lives and the economy at an astounding pace.

Obama wants socialized medicine, more wage controls, more corporate and personal welfare, higher taxes, and more energy restrictions, to mention just a few highlights. How does he compare with McCain on the issues of speech, faith-based politics, and sacrifice to the nation?

Obama didn't vote on the McCain-Feingold campaign censorship law, because the law passed in 2002, while Obama didn't take his Senate seat till 2005. We were hopeful about a headline from Broadcasting & Cable claiming that Obama "does not support" the Fairness Doctrine, which is a euphemism for censoring radio.

However, Obama did not take a principled stand for free speech; instead, his spokesperson said that the proposal was a "distraction" from imposing other controls such as "media-ownership caps." In other words, Obama believes the national government should be able to forcibly prohibit some people from owning certain media outlets.

Both McCain and Obama believe that the phrase "Congress shall make no law" actually means "Congress shall make a law" imposing speech controls.

Obama had nothing but praise for President Bush's national faith-based welfare, which forces you to hand over some of your money to religious groups.

Obama promised that "federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs." However, not only is it immoral to force people who disagree with a particular religion to fund practitioners of that religion, but it is impossible for explicitly religious groups to spend tax dollars in a strictly secular way. The national government has no business forcibly redistributing people's money to any religious outfit.

The First Amendment also states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." While faith-based welfare does not sanction a single creed, it forcibly transfers funds to particular religious groups in violation of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

If you're a Christian, you shouldn't be forced to fund a Muslim organization, and vice versa. If you're an atheist or "other," you shouldn't be forced to fund either. And churches shouldn't bow to Caesar to stick their noses into the government trough.

What about the issue of sacrificial service? When Obama came through Colorado earlier this month, he outlined his plan for forcing students to serve politician-approved goals. The Rocky Mountain News reports that Obama wants to make "federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs." In other words, Obama first wants to take your money by force, then blackmail your local school district with your money to force students to take time away from their studies, work, and other interests to "serve" whatever it is Obama deems appropriate.

And we always thought the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited involuntary servitude. True enough, people can pull their children out of government schools in protest, which means that they merely have to perform involuntary servitude to fund the school they're not using.

McCain and Obama are not merely bad candidates. Their policies are profoundly evil, and they violate the principles of liberty on which this nation was founded. They also violate at least the spirit, and we believe the letter, of the Constitution.

So whom are we voting for this year? We doubt that any of our regular readers need some newspaper columnists to tell them how to vote. We'll probably vote differently, anyway.

However, Ari feels free to mention that he's seriously considering writing in John Galt for president. With so many political "leaders" blaming liberty for the problems caused by political controls, and promising as the answer more severe controls, this election is starting to feel a lot like the world of Atlas Shrugged.

McCain's War on Liberty

Yaron Brook has written the single best critique of campaign censorship (for that's what it is) that I've read. Writing for Forbes, Brook argues that laws such as McCain-Feingold "subject political speech to the corrupting influence of government control."

Brook explains why campaign censorship is harmful; why it shuts out true outsider candidates. But what Brook brings home especially powerfully is the end-game of campaign censorship: campaigns funded -- and thus controlled -- exclusively by the political powerful:

[C]ampaign finance advocates have not been appeased by McCain-Feingold, and are calling for complete public financing of political elections. Under such a system, candidates would no longer have to financially earn the platform from which they speak; instead, the government would furnish candidates with your tax dollars. Of course, not every potential candidate could receive public funding under such a system: Only "serious" candidates would.

Who decides which candidate is serious? Those presently holding government power. There is no surer way to create a political aristocracy in America.

John McCain betrayed our First Amendment liberties. He should immediately and strongly advocate legislation to repeal his abominable law. I imagine that will happen around the same time that Barack Obama endorses liberty in medicine.

Free Speech and Offensive Speech

Today, Mark Wolf over at Rocky Talk Live picked up the story about how ProgressNowAction.org used the term "bitch slap" last year, before the organization went after Jon Caldara for using the same term. This morning, I also briefly appeared on Peter Boyles's show on 630 KHOW to discuss the story. I wanted to elaborate on a few of the remarks I made to Boyles.

Free speech can only be understood in a legitimate and coherent way in the context of property rights. Let's take some examples to clarify this point.

People have the right to say "bitch slap" all they want, within the context of individual rights. If you want, you can start a newspaper called "Bitch Slap News." You can start a "bitch slap" blog in which you write nothing but the term. You can wander around the streets mumbling "bitch slap" to yourself. However, your right to say "bitch slap" cannot interfere with somebody else's rights.

For example, you cannot come over to my house and spray paint the word "bitch slap" on my door. Nor can you burn the term into my grass. Nor can you barge into my home, uninvited, and start saying "bitch slap." You cannot walk into a business and start shouting the term "bitch slap." You cannot walk into a newspaper office and demand that the paper publish the term.

Just as you have the right to set speech policies within your own home, so businesses have the right to set speech policies within the business, subject to contractual arrangements. For example, if you work for a newspaper, you do NOT have the right to publish the term "bitch slap," or "F*** Bush," in violation of the paper's policies. (Many papers have a policy against publishing the "F-word," but no paper that I know of has a policy against publishing the term "bitch slap." Indeed, I suspect that the term "bitch slap" has been published more frequently during the past few days than ever before in the term's history.) My beef with J. David McSwane, the college student who published the "F*** Bush" headline in his school newspaper, was that he flagrantly violated his paper's stated policies and then tried to claim that he had a "free speech" right to do so.

I can guarantee you that, had McSwane called Condoleezza Rice the "N-word," he would have been gone, gone, gone. I'm not sure whether the FCC can sanction a radio station for using the "N-word;" I doubt it. Nevertheless, any radio host or DJ who called Barack Obama the "N-word" would be ejected immediately. And this is entirely proper. Even though the radio waves are today "public" -- i.e., nationally controlled by the FCC -- properly radio waves should be private property. And the owners of a radio station, the same as the owners of a newspaper, should have the political right to set speech policy for the station. Most stations would voluntarily and properly prohibit the use of the "F-word" and "N-word" on air. I doubt many stations would ban the use of the term "bitch slap." However, if (for example) a Christian station wants to prohibit the use of such terms, then that is the right of the station's owners.

Of course, if ProgressNow wishes to publicly condemn Caldara for saying "bitch slap," that is the right of ProgressNow. They also have the right to complain to Caldara's advertisers. However, as ProgressNow may be learning, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. You have the right to drink a quart of Vodka, but it's a pretty stupid thing to do. You have the right to slam somebody for using a term that your own web page has used, but it's a pretty idiotic thing to do. But if ProgressNow wants to spend its resources to destroy its own credibility, that's fine by me. The rest of us have the right to subject the organization to the public mockery that it has so richly earned.