Tag: First Amendment

Net Neutrality Violates the First and Fifth Amendments

This blogpost was co-authored by legal associate Matt Gilliam.

In December 2010, the FCC adopted Preserving the Open Internet, a “network neutrality” order regulating broadband internet access service. Issued under authority (ostensibly) derived from 24 disparate provisions of federal communications law, Preserving the Open Internet is predicated on three basic rules: transparency, no blocking, and no discrimination.

Broadly speaking, “transparency” requires broadband providers to “disclose network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of services.” The “no blocking” rule forbids fixed broadband providers from “blocking lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices.” Meanwhile, mobile broadband providers are restricted from blocking “lawful websites” and certain applications. The “No Discrimination” rule prohibits broadband providers from unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic.

The promulgation of the FCC’s network neutrality order will have serious consequences for the constitutional rights of broadband providers. One such provider, Verizon, now seeks to challenge the FCC order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This week, Cato joined TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Free State Foundation, on a brief urging the court to uphold Verizon’s First and Fifth Amendment rights.

We first argue that the FCC order violates broadband providers’ First Amendment rights by compelling speech, forcing them to transmit messages from content providers that they might not wish to convey, preventing them from transmitting messages they want to convey, prohibiting them from exercising editorial discretion, and generally restricting the mode and content of their communications. Because the order singles out certain speakers, it demands “strict scrutiny,” which it cannot survive because it neither serves a compelling governmental interest nor is narrowly tailored. We next argue that the FCC order violates broadband providers’ Fifth Amendment rights by subjecting them to physical and regulatory takings. The FCC order enacts a physical taking by granting the content providers an unrestricted right to occupy property while slicing through the bundle of property rights broadband providers enjoy as network owners. The order essentially gives the content providers unlimited use of the network owners’ physical property without any compensation, forbidding the rightful owners from exercising their right to control the use of their property and exclude others.

Furthermore, in forcing network owners to give network space to content providers, the regulation shifts costs to consumers, discouraging them from using broadband service and thus diminishing the network’s economic value. The FCC order also constitutes a regulatory taking because it prevents broadband providers from attaining their networks’ full economic value and subverts network owners’ reasonable investment-backed expectations. Finally, we argue that the FCC’s assertion of authority to regulate the Internet is a dangerous aggrandizement of agency power. In sum, while seeking to benefit content providers, the FCC has promulgated a regulation that violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of broadband providers.

The case of Verizon v. FCC will be argued at the D.C. Circuit later this summer.

Citizens United Doesn’t Mean What Campaign Finance ‘Reformers’ Think It Does

Building on the excellent fisking of Newsroom by my colleague Caleb Brown and Reason’s Scott Shackford, let me  reiterate that Citizens United has nothing to do with any problems regarding how we regulate political campaigns, perceived or real.  

Perceived: Campaign finance “reformers” think we’d be a lot better off if corporations, particularly foreign corporations, weren’t able to fund candidates and parties.  Of course, Citizens United didn’t disturb the ban on that sort of thing, which has been in place since 1907. 

Real:  Independent political speech – be it individual, corporate, union, advocacy group, neighborhood association, or informal group of friends – is largely unregulated (though you do have to register SuperPACs and disclose donors, be they individuals or corporations) but candidates and campaigns bear onerous burdens regarding contribution limits, disclosure requirements (which scare off small donors rather than large bundlers), and arcane coordination rules.  A Supreme Court ruling is indeed at fault for the bizarre and largely unworkable way in which our laws have developed in this areas, but it’s not Citizens United.  Instead, it’s the 1976 baby-splitting opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, which saw the Court rewrite the Watergate-era Federal Election Campaign Act, creating a piece of legislation much different than the global reform Congress passed (sound familiar?).

I’ve written a law review article about all this called “Stephen Colbert Is Right to Lampoon Our Campaign Finance System (And So Can You!),” which will run in the University of St. Thomas (MN) Journal of Law & Public Policy this fall. 

And Tuesday afternoon I’ll be testifying to that effect to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution (here’s the link to the hearing site, where you’ll be able to watch).  Here’s an excerpt from my written statement (which isn’t online yet):

The underlying problem, however, is not the under-regulation of independent speech but the attempt to manage political speech in the first place.  Political money is a moving target that, like water, will flow somewhere.  If it’s not to candidates, it’s to parties, and if not there, then to independent groups or unincorporated individuals acting together.  Because what the government does matters and people want to speak about the issues that concern them.  To the extent that “money in politics” is a problem, the solution isn’t to try to reduce the money—that’s a utopian goal—but to reduce the scope of political activity the money tries to influence.  Shrink the size of government and its intrusions in people’s lives and you’ll shrink the amount people will spend trying to get their piece of the pie or, more likely, trying to avert ruinous public policies.

… .

The solution is rather obvious:  Liberalize rather than further restrict the campaign finance regime.  Get rid of limits on contributions to candidates—by individuals, not corporations—and then have disclosures for those who donate some amount big enough for the interest in preventing the appearance of quid pro quo corruption to outweigh the potential for harassment.  Then the big boys who want to be real players in the political market will have to put their reputations on the line, but not the average person donating a few hundred bucks—or even the lawyer donating $2,500—and being exposed to boycotts and vigilantes.  Let the voters weigh what a donation from this or that plutocrat means to them, rather than—and I say this with all due respect—allowing incumbent politicians to write the rules to benefit themselves.

Curiously, there will be six witnesses taking the “get corporate (and maybe even all private) money out of politics” view as against one, me, for deregulation and freedom of speech.  That seems a bit unfair; I’d think that the campaign-finance-reform zealots need at least a dozen people to stand up against my very simple “remove contribution caps but require disclosure for big players” argument.  Should be fun.

In short, while there are (at least) 99 problems with how we manage elections, Citizens United ain’t one.

The Muzzle Awards

The Boston Phoenix announces its 15th Annual Muzzle Awards:

The Muzzle Awards were inspired by noted civil-liberties lawyer and Phoenix contributor Harvey Silverglate, who wrote the sidebar accompanying this article. They are named after similar awards given by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression.

This year’s edition, as always, was compiled by tracking the previous year’s free-speech stories in New England. Nominations were also solicited from American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapters in Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island. This article is based on reporting by various news organizations and Web sites — including the Boston Globe, the Cambridge Chronicle, the Providence Journal, the Portland Press Herald, the Bangor Daily News, the Enterprise of Brockton, the Associated Press, Down East, the Republican of Springfield, the New York Times, GoLocalProv, the North Providence Breeze, OpenCourt, wbur.org, the New England First Amendment Center at Northeastern University, and Talking Points Memo.

The envelopes, please.

It’s “Declaration of Internet Freedom” Day!

… or at least I should have said so back on March 4th.

That was the anniversary of the day that Congress proposed to append a Bill of Rights to our Constitution. With a lovely preamble that went a little somethin’ like this:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights contains gems like “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” (Amendment 1) and, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (Amendment 4).

I think this original Declaration of Internet Freedom is the bee’s knees. Yes, it’s taking some work to apply its strictures to the modern communications environment, but that’s a much more contained problem than starting over.

Starting over. That’s what a collection of really lovely groups–some highly pro-regulation, others handmaidens of government growth–are doing. They’ve come up with a “Declaration of Internet Freedom” whose principal virtue is a pretty cool graphic. The actual “principles” in it are so weasel-y that I wouldn’t trust ‘em as far as I could throw ‘em.

When you’re done pondering how one could “throw” a principle, consider an alternative to the “mainstream” declaration put out by our friends at TechFreedom. Their Declaration of Internet Freedom has a bunch of principles like “Humility” and “Rule of Law.”

Their thing on “Free Expression” cites the First Amendment. Remember that one? That’s the “Congress shall make no law” one. So that’s pretty good.

But I’m really hoping that nobody living today gets to define the basic principles by which the Internet is ruled. We’ve got that. It’s a neato collection of negative rights, preventing the government from interfering with society’s development, whether that development occurs online or off.

So happy Declaration of Internet Freedom day! I’ll be celebrating the real one.

In case you’ve gotten confused in all the jostling around, the real one is the Bill of Rights.

Obamacare’s Constitutional Defects, First Amendment Division

On May 11, the Department of Health & Human Services finalized rules requiring insurers to tell any of their customers who get premium rebates this summer that the windfall comes courtesy of Obamacare.  Here’s the official required language:  “This letter is to inform you that you will receive a rebate of a portion of your health insurance premiums. This rebate is required by the Affordable Care Act-the health reform law.”

Given that Obamacare is already increasing costs for most patients – insured or otherwise – I wonder who the lucky few will be who get a chance to read the government’s prose.  Moreover, it’s a bit rich to create this “language mandate” when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had earlier advised insurance companies not to speak against Obamacare’s cost-increasing features.  As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader put it:

Obama’s HHS secretary sought to gag insurers that disclosed how Obamacare’s mandates are increasing the cost of health insurance, even though such speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment, telling them if they did so, they could be excluded from health insurance exchanges. Prior to that, the Obama administration attempted to gag insurers from disclosing how Obamacare harms Medicare Advantage participants, drawing criticism from First Amendment experts like UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the author of two First Amendment textbooks.

Beyond the unseemliness of it all, however, there’s also a constitutional problem:  The government can’t require people to make politicized statements, whether that’s “Live Free or Die” on license plate or the labeling of consumer products where the labels aren’t justified on fraud-prevention or public health grounds.  See some other examples and legal analysis in Bader’s post at CEI’s blog.

The bottom line is that just like the First Amendment stops the government from censoring speech, it stops it from forcing speech.  And just like there’s no “health care is unique” exception to the Commerce Clause, there isn’t one to the First Amendment.

Stop Using Slippery-Slope Arguments? Where Would that End?

Richard Thaler writes in the New York Times:

Justice Scalia is arguing that if the court lets Congress create a mandate to buy health insurance, nothing could stop Congress from passing laws requiring everyone to buy broccoli and to join a gym…Can anyone imagine Congress passing a broccoli mandate law, much less the court allowing it to take effect?

Yes annnnd…yes. Next question.

Surely, the justices have the conceptual resources to draw a distinction between the health care market and the market for broccoli. And even if they don’t, then all the briefs, the zillions of blog posts and a generation’s worth of economic literature can help them.

If drawing a constitutionally meaningful distinction between the markets for health insurance and broccoli is child’s play for Thaler, he should school all the brief- and blog-post-writers who so far have failed. That would have been a more productive use of his thousand words than his build-up to this thesis:

If you are opposed to a policy, state your case based on the merits — not on the imagined risk of what else might happen down the road. The path of that road is so unpredictable that it may even produce a U-turn.

Good grief. Slippery-slope arguments are about principles. As in, “If you concede this principle because you don’t mind the result here, you will no longer have it to protect you against that bad result there.” Thaler’s thesis would lead, for example, to all manner of civil-liberties violations by the state because there simply isn’t enough political support to protect all the civil liberties of various minorities. But Thaler doesn’t want us to think about things like consequences or the future.

The potential for U-turns makes no more sense as an argument against invoking slippery slopes principles, because principled arguments can help generate the U-turn that opponents of, say, ObamaCare want to see.

I take silly arguments like this to be evidence that ObamaCare supporters are in complete panic mode.

‘People’s Rights Amendment’ Would Knock Out People’s Rights

This blogpost was co-authored by Cato legal associate Kathleen Hunker.

Any prizefighter worth betting on knows that the worst thing you can do in a tough match is succumb to frustration.  House Democrats should heed that wisdom.  Frustrated by the Constitution’s interference in their efforts to muzzle certain kinds of political speech, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and 27 other congressmen have proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, in their haste to deliver a blow against evil corporations, these lawmakers have exposed the Constitution’s flank in a way that would lead to debilitating blows against individual civil rights were this measure ever adopted.

The proposed change, absurdly titled the People’s Rights Amendment, asserts that the Constitution protects only the rights of “natural persons” and that Congress retains the ability to subject “all corporate entities” to any regulation or restriction Congress deems “reasonable.”  Its supporters contend that the Amendment is necessary to reduce the role of money in politics and ensure that elections represent the voice of the people.  As several commentators have already observed, however, the amendment does far more than subject corporations to new campaign finance regulations.

Although the People’s Rights Amendment says that it shall not be construed “to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people,” it radically contracts those and other rights entrenched in America’s political tradition.

George Will’s latest column explains this very point. In addition to denying “natural persons” the right to associate and speak in concert,

McGovern stresses that his amendment decrees that “all corporate entities — for-profit and nonprofit alike” — have no constitutional rights.  So Congress — and state legislatures and local governments — could regulate to the point of proscription political speech, or any other speech, by the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, NARAL Pro-Choice America or any of the other tens of thousands of nonprofit corporate advocacy groups, including political parties and campaign committees.

Newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations — and most religious institutions — are corporate entities.  McGovern’s amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights.

Instead of removing corporate money – which goes much more to lobbyists (petitioning for redress of grievances) than electioneering anyway – the amendment grants Congress the power to strip think tanks, advocacy groups, charities, newspapers, political parties, and even a candidate’s campaign of the right to criticize and oppose the government.  Any political speech more complex than standing on a park bench at an Occupy rally becomes subject to the whims of federal bureaucrats.  Even books don’t escape the amendment’s long reach, as the government lawyer admitted would be the case under the pre-Citizens United law that the amendment hopes to reinstate.

McGovern and Pelosi haven’t answered how the People’s Rights Amendment ensures that elections represent the voice of the people when it takes away the very venues on which the people stand to have their voice heard.

George Will makes a second foreboding observation.  He notes that, by stripping corporations of all constitutional protections, the amendment would empower the government to do much more than proscribe speech:

[G]overnment, unleashed by McGovern’s amendment, could regulate religious practices at most houses of worship, conduct whatever searches it wants, reasonable or not, of corporate entities, and seize corporate-owned property for whatever it deems public uses — without paying compensation. Yes, McGovern’s scythe would mow down the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as the First.

For more on these dangers, see here and here.  Of course corporations aren’t human beings, but that brilliant insight is legally irrelevant.  Corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights, and those individuals do not lose the protection of the Constitution by choosing to exercise their right to associate and pool their resources.

Thus, while a corporation does not enjoy the full breadth of constitutional rights (i.e., sexual privacy), it warrants whatever degree of protection is necessary for its members to exist as free and rational beings.  These rights certainly extend to the ability to publicize and support political initiatives.

Before the supporters of People’s Rights Amendment make that massive lunge against what they view as constitutional frustrations, they should take a step back and reassess whether the satisfaction they derive from sticking it to corporations is worth the potential collapse of our political system’s commitment to a free society.