Free speech is worth having, apparently, as long as it can be controlled.
That’s the contradictory message emerging from some quarters in light of this year’s record spending on judicial races. Business, labor and other groups are spending too much money on political messages, it seems, threatening to have too much influence over voters. How to stop them, though, is a head-scratcher. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech is in the way.
The state Public Disclosure Commission last week directed its staff to research ways the Legislature could limit large independent donations in political races. Direct contributions to campaigns from individuals and political action committees are already limited – to $1,400 per candidate for the primary and another $1,400 for the general election. What isn’t limited is how much an independent organization can spend, as long as it doesn’t coordinate such spending with the candidate’s campaign. Why no limits? It’s that pesky First Amendment.
Oregon sought to limit such spending, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said to forget it. Washington shouldn’t even try.
The worry, apparently, is that millions spent by independent entities in judicial races will taint the appearance of judges’ independence. “These entities – the corporations, trade associations, unions – have taken control of the election process,” PDC Commissioner Mike Connelly told the Associated Press last week. How? By advertising a lot? Implicit in Connelly’s statement seems to be a lack of faith in voters’ ability to discern, decipher and make reasoned choices.
It also underestimates how well the marketplace of ideas really works. Independent advertisements that drag a candidate through the mud are usually seen for what they are – crass exaggerations. They’re transparent enough for voters to see through. Candidates aren’t in love with them because they can’t control them. Often, they backfire.
We don’t fear for the independence of the judiciary, either. In the summer’s most high-profile state Supreme Court race, the Building Industry Association of Washington spent heavily to support John Groen, a prominent land-use attorney, against incumbent Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who was backed by an independent committee that included labor unions and Indian tribes. These groups clearly believed their interests would best be served by a particular candidate, but that’s a long way from suggesting that either candidate was for sale.
In the end, the incumbent won by a 54-46 margin. The judiciary survived with its integrity intact.
Voters are smart enough to make sense of competing messages in high-profile campaigns. Muzzling political speech is as unnecessary as it is unconstitutional.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
