The exercise of free speech is acceptable to the left when they agree with what you are saying. But when the left and media types find the views disagreeable or inconvenient and painfully true, the exercise of free speech becomes portrayed as sinister.
For example, the Committee for Truth in Politics has run a series of hard-hitting ads targeting House and Senate liberals and as a bonus they are driving the media insane in their quest to identify their donors. No luck.
CBS newsman Armen Keteyian traveled to small town Indiana to interview Jim Bopp, the counsel for the Committee and a champion for free speech and privacy. Just watch this two-minute interview and see the look on the reporters face. How dare someone not tell him who their donors are! Bravo!
Stymied by lawyers like Bopp and groups like the Committee for Truth in Politics, Americans for Prosperity and others, the President and the Democrat Congress — with the support of the media — are attempting to change the law to force disclosure of campaign donors. Translated: more state control of free speech. Of course, American history has a long and noble tradition of anonymous political activity. Publius and his compatriots wrote the Federalist Papers. Common Sense was published anonymously and the NAACP went to court to prevent disclosure of their donors against racists in the Alabama government who attempted to use the information to threaten their supporters. Each and every instance such activity was protected by the First Amendment.
But Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama have a different notion of the Constitution. They want to pass the DISCLOSE bill and are one vote away in the Senate from doing so. The bill would “require” special interest groups to physically appear at the end of a campaign ad they helped pay for. But the bill allows loopholes for big labor unions. Big labor unions would not only be exempt from the restrictions but could continue to take forced union dues from workers and spend it on politics.
Other groups are also exempt. AARP is free to run ads supporting ObamaCare but the 60 Plus Association would be burdened by a new flood of federal regulations if they ran ads opposing it. As a final effort to buy votes, the Democrats even exempted the National Rifle Association from the restrictions. “Free speech for me but not for thee” seems to be the motto of the bill.
We have recently seen a rash of examples of how disclosure of a contribution led to repercussions. Gay activists in California attacked individual donors to the traditional marriage initiative and Target’s sloppy entrance into the Minnesota governor’s race lead to boycott’s and protests, as well.
The Hill reports that Harry Reid and his ilk will try one last hitch effort to foist this monstrosity on the American people before a new Senate is elected — essentially ending the threat for the time being.
The president promised to fundamentally change America and enactment of the DISCLOSE Act would be a giant feather in his cap — changing the constitution and restricting freedom without a constitutional amendment. In the interim, groups like the Committee for Truth in Politics and American Crossroads will continue to exercise their rights and drive reporters crazy. That is what America is all about.