“I wish this event really weren’t necessary, but it is,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) began, opening up a day of discussion on free speech and business hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation Wednesday.
Cornyn described the event as an opportunity for him and others interested in the intersection of First Amendment issues and the business community to “think out loud” about the particular challenges faced by businesses today.
Free speech is “under assault on a daily basis in this city,” Cornyn said. “I guess it’s always been that way and it’s always going to be that way.”
Senate Democrats recently tried to pass a constitutional amendment allowing the government to regulate and limit campaign spending. It was unanimously blocked by Senate Republicans.
“Money is a necessary element in politics,” Cornyn said, despite what people might wish. It is sometimes the only means for people to effectively spread a message, which the senator argued is key to what the First Amendment protects.
Cornyn especially criticized the amendment’s media exemption, which clarified that freedom of the press should remain unabridged by the amendment. “But the fact is,” Cornyn countered, “if The New York Times or The Washington Post are free to express any point of view at any time that they wish to express, why not a blogger, why not a pamphleteer, why not any advocacy group that cares to promote any point of view or any agenda item?”
“Why should media companies be treated differently?” Cornyn continued. While a newspaper remains free to influence policy by their reporting, and to make endorsements, a small business affected by those policies and candidates does not have the same resources. Their only option may be to spend money on advertising to make their case.
Cornyn pointed to how changing modes of communication, like Twitter (of which he professed himself a frequent user) have especially complicated debate on such a contested subject. With 140-character limits, “People have fallen back on such inane comments as ‘corporations aren’t people.”
A subsequent panel touched on the history of campaign finance laws and free speech. While the left now campaigns for harsh restrictions on political speech, the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone noted that “If you go back in history, it’s the advocates of labor unions who used free speech arguments.”
“I think it’s one of the unfortunate aspects of our time now that many on the left have abandoned this stance,” Barone said, “and are attempting to shut down speech, when many on the political left 40, 50, 60 years ago were among the more vigorous advocates of free speech.”
The panel also discussed the impact of disclosure practices on businesses. Paul Atkins, CEO of Patomak Global Partners, LLC, offered the UPS as an example of how trying to comply with pressure to disclose can backfire on a company. “In 2013, they were praised by the Center for Political Accountability for being so transparent, having changed their disclosure policies,” recalled Atkins. “Then in 2014, just this year, they got a shareholder proposal criticizing them for their actions that they disclosed by trying to play along with this sort of thing.”
Atkins emphasized the difficult position these demands pose to companies: “It shows that by giving in you don’t necessarily get ahead.”
