Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Commentary / The perils of political speech and advocacy

The perils of political speech and advocacy

Scot Mussi

Scot Mussi

A troubling and dangerous narrative has developed with regard to organizations like the Arizona Free Enterprise Club that engage in the full contact sport of politics and political advocacy.  That narrative is that we should either shut up or be singled out.

First, a little background.  Our organization opposes crony capitalism and the many forms in which that occurs, which means we oppose all kinds of subsidies and other incentives that benefit a few select companies or industries at taxpayer expense.

One issue lately that highlights this trend is our opposition to solar subsidies and other incentives that benefit a few select businesses.  In fact, our fight against picking winners and losers on renewable subsidies goes back a decade when we opposed (and still oppose) arbitrary renewable energy mandates and other handouts.

After a slate of free market candidates who oppose subsidies won their races last year, the solar lobby has been reeling.  But instead of finding better candidates or amending their agenda, the solar lobby has targeted the club’s political activity and speech rights.  The Clean Elections Commission has now jumped into the fray, proposing a draconian campaign finance rule that would effectively prohibit political activity by non-profit organizations that don’t disclose all of their contributions and expenditures.

So the commission wants to require all donations to advocacy groups like the Free Enterprise Club be disclosed.  Harmless, right?  Wrong.  Anonymous speech is an important part of political discourse dating back to before the founding of the country.  The most important document in American history, the U.S. Constitution, was defended anonymously.

Consider the alternative agenda being pushed by the commission and other first amendment opponents. You want to protest City Hall or blow the whistle on a corrupt politician? Register first. Want to be an anonymous source for a news reporter? Please be sure we have the correct spelling of your name so it can be provided to the government.

This isn’t about disclosure or transparency. The goal is to silence political speech through harassment and intimidation.   Look no further than the recent John Doe investigation in Wisconsin or the push by Alabama officials to force disclosure of donors to the NAACP in the 1950’s.

This is not a right vs. left or conservative vs. liberal argument. Consider this statement from Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, “Public discourse and debate is a cornerstone of our democracy and our Constitution ensures the right of individuals to engage in these conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of harassment or embarrassment. The only way to bring positive change to our elections is to promote reforms that respect free speech and do not limit it.”

As a group, we will continue to defend the solar industry’s ability to speak and spend freely on the issues and candidates of their choosing, just as much as we will defend ours.  And we will not be deterred from pursuing our core mission of promoting economic freedom and a vibrant economy in Arizona. If you want to reach me, please do so at Scot@azfree.org.

Scot Mussi is President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.

3 comments

  1. Please note that the ACLU was defending speech by individuals. Speech by organizations is a quite different animal, particularly those organizations formed for the purpose of political activity. If political organizations had not built such an extensive track record of deceptive advertising and practices to advance the specific interests of wealthy donors, we might not need this conversation. Further, the case to which Mr Mussi refers, in which APS specifically used dark money to install its preferred candidates on the Corporation Commission in an unprecedented violation of rules, custom and the spirit of the law governing that ACC-regulated, state-protected monopoly utility, clearly reinforces the need for more control over dark money, not less. Mr Mussi’s argument carries more water for moneyed special interests than for free speech, as usual. And to rank his own propaganda beside the Constitution in a time of violent revolution is laughably over the top.

  2. “…we oppose all kinds of subsidies and other incentives that benefit a few select companies or industries at taxpayer expense.”

    For example: you would oppose utilities being given special favor by the regulators whose campaigns those same utilities bankrolled, yes?

  3. Well, thanks for that steaming pile of right wing bullshit designed to look like partisan-free discourse. Yes, business should be held accountable for who is supporting them. Sorry that grassroots advocacy isn’t leaning your way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

China United States trade and American tariffs as two opposing cargo ships as an economic  taxation dispute over import and exports concept as a 3D illustration.

Globalism can’t compete with an aggressive China

To reduce strategic vulnerabilities and lessen global environmental harm, Congress should speed the domestic production of key metals and minerals. The U.S. already adheres to the world’s strictest mining safety and environmental standards. It makes no sense to tolerate China’s continued stranglehold over these key commodities.