Amending the First Amendment

February 13, 1997|By George F. Will

WASHINGTON — To promote the fair and effective functioning of the democratic process, Congress, with respect to elections for federal office, and States, for all other elections, including initiatives and referendums, may adopt reasonable regulations of funds expended, including contributions, to influence the outcome of elections, provided that such regulations do not impair the right of the public to a full and free discussion of all issues and do not prevent any candidate for elected office from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy.

Such governments may reasonably define which expenditures are deemed to be for the purpose of influencing elections, so long as such definition does not interfere with the right of the people fully to debate issues.

No regulation adopted under this authority may regulate the content of any expression of opinion or communication.

-- Proposed amendment to the Constitution. WASHINGTON -- Like the imperturbable Sir Francis Drake, who did not allow the Spanish Armada's arrival off England to interrupt a game of bowling, supposed friends of the First Amendment are showing notable sang-froid in the face of ominous developments.

Freedom of speech is today under more serious attack than at any time in at least the last 199 years -- since enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Actually, today's threat, launched in the name of political hygiene, is graver than that posed by those acts, for three reasons.

First, the 1798 acts, by which Federalists attempted to suppress criticism of the government they then controlled, were bound to perish with fluctuations in the balance of partisan forces. Today's attack on free speech advances under a bland bipartisan banner of cleanliness.

Second, the 1798 acts restricted certain categories of political speech and activities, defined, albeit quite broadly, by content and objectives. Today's enemies of the First Amendment aim to abridge the right of free political speech generally. It is not any particular content but the quantity of political speech they find objectionable.

Third, the 1798 acts had expiration dates and were allowed to expire. However, if today's speech-restricters put in place their structure of restriction (see above), its anti-constitutional premise and program probably will be permanent.

Incumbent wisdom

Its premise is that Americans engage in too much communication of political advocacy, and that government -- that is, incumbents in elective offices -- should be trusted to decide and enforce the correct amount. This attempt to put the exercise of the most elemental civil right under government regulation is the most frontal assault ever mounted on the most fundamental principle of the nation's founders.

The principle is that limited government must be limited especially severely concerning regulation of the rights most essential to an open society. Thus the First Amendment says ''Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,'' not ''Congress may abridge the freedom of speech with such laws as Congress considers reasonable.''

The text of the proposed amendment comes from Rep. Richard Gephardt, the House minority leader, who has the courage of his alarming convictions when he says: ''What we have is two important values in conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can't have both.''

However, he also says: ''I know this is a serious step to amend the First Amendment. . . . But . . . this is not an effort to diminish free speech.'' Nonsense. Otherwise Mr. Gephardt would not acknowledge that the First Amendment is an impediment.

The reformers' problem is the Supreme Court, which has affirmed the obvious: Restrictions on the means of making fTC speech heard, including spending for the dissemination of political advocacy, are restrictions on speech. It would be absurd to say, for example: Congress shall make no law abridging the right to place one's views before the public in advertisements or on billboards but Congress can abridge -- reasonably, of course -- the right to spend for such things.

Insincerity oozes from the text of the proposed amendment. When Congress, emancipated from the First Amendment's restrictions, weaves its web of restraints on political communication, it will do so to promote its understanding of what is the ''fair'' and ''effective'' functioning of democracy, and ''effective'' advocacy. Yet all this regulation will be consistent with ''the right of the people fully to debate issues,'' and with ''full and free discussion of all issues'' -- as the political class chooses to define ''full'' and ''free'' and the ''issues.''

In 1588 England was saved not just by Drake but by luck -- the ''Protestant wind'' that dispersed the Armada. Perhaps today the strangely silent friends of freedom -- why are not editorial pages erupting against the proposed vandalism against the Bill of Rights? -- are counting on some similar intervention to forestall today's ''reformers,'' who aim not just to water the wine of freedom but to regulate the consumption of free speech.

George F. Will is a syndicated columnist.

Pub Date: 2/13/97

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.