A victory for free speech

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week to strike down prohibitions on corporate and union political advertising was a huge victory for free speech, that ingenious gift from the Founding Fathers that always seems to vex people who are forced to come to terms with its absolute meaning.

As Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion, the theory behind laws prohibiting corporate speech "if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are."

It always has been curious to us why so many newspapers would champion such limits on the First Amendment, as well as why many seem now to decry this decision as somehow signaling the end of democracy. It is exactly the opposite.

Of course, laws such as the infamous McCain-Feingold limits on last-minute campaign ads (actually, ads published within 30 days of an election), made specific exemptions for media corporations. But this was even more offensive than a blanket prohibition. Despite the misguided dissenting argument made this week by the court's minority, the founders intended free speech rights to apply to all. Any time the government begins to parse such a right, it chooses winners and losers. It is highly arrogant for a government that itself is growing large beyond all proportions to be so worried about the free speech rights of other entities it deems too large and powerful.

Also curious to us was the reaction of Utah Republican Party Chairman Dave Hansen, who was quoted in this newspaper as saying, "I'm a believer in free speech, but if you get too many voices out there with their own campaign, each with their own individual message, the public may lose track." His worry seems to be that candidates could lose control of their own message. But free speech naturally leads to a cacophony of voices. At what point does the number of voices become so large that speech should be curtailed? Is it at two, or six, or 50 or more? Government cannot pick a number without leaving someone, and perhaps some idea, out.

As for the argument that this somehow opens campaigns to a Wild West corporate spending spree — well, apparently naivete knows few bounds. Corporations already are hugely involved in campaigns for high office. It's just that the rules have forced them to funnel money through indirect ways, such as political action committees. Corporations never lost their power of influence. They just had to hide it. Secrecy truly is the enemy of a democracy.

Given the concerns many corporations have about public perception and unnecessarily offending customers, we doubt you'll see a lot of corporate ads in coming elections. But even if you do, it won't be a reason to worry about democracy. The world is changing in many exciting ways. The Internet has opened new avenues to speech that give even people of limited means the opportunity to "go viral" with a well-crafted message.

The more voices, the better.