Invective Is As American As Apple Pie

Invective is as American as apple pie.

Early in September, the Supreme Court looks to hear new arguments about its decision to overrule the 1990 decision of Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a decision which upheld corporate restrictions on corporate spending to support of oppose political candidates. The issue is how far campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold, can go in regulating campaign spending by corporations.

The current case involves a negative documentary about Hillary Clinton called: Hillary, the Movie. The movie was funded by a conservative group that lost a lawsuit with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) when it wanted to distribute the movie on video-on-demand. (The movie is available on the internet and on DVD.) A lower court supported by the FEC.

What’s the current tempest in this judicial teacup? Well, McCain-Feingold focused on broadcast transmissions and did not include “old media” such as books. If this movie is banned from the air, what’s to say that books can’t be banned as well – a logical extension, no?

Whether or not you agree with the points made in the movie about Hillary Clinton is not the issue. The issue remains the First Amendment right of Free Speech, a point that is as old as the US republic.

Thomas Jefferson, an eminent Federalist wrote, was “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, fathered by a Virginia mulatto father.” Of course, no one challenged Barack Obama’s lineage and birth place during his recent election campaign (as ridiculous as those charges may have been).

John Binns, a Philadelphia editor, published the “Coffin Bill” which accused Andrew Jackson, during his first presidential campaign, of having recklessly killed six soldiers who were supposedly deserting. The handbill featured six individual coffins. Nothing on the Swift Boat group that attacked John Kerry here.
And how did Andrew Jackson manage such situations. He brought Francis Blair in from Kentucky to edit the Washington Globe and support Jackson’s own policies.

If you want more fuel to add to the historical fire you can read Paul Boller Junior’s book on presidential campaigns. But the point is throughout American history, powerful well-monied groups have tried to influence politics by spending money in the media.

While it will be fascinating to see how the Supreme Court decides, the issue itself is chilling.

We continually advocate for free speech in our media and in our communications and in our advertising and in our efforts to understand and communicate with consumers and patients.

Any attempt to restrict absolute freedom of communications is an absolute restriction of a basic American freedom and infringement of an American right to access, knowledge, information and free decision-making.

Whether what was said was right or not, Jefferson did well, Jackson got elected, as did Obama and Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. Democracy and freedom of information does win out in the end, whether it is new media or old.