Free expression basis of allowing election spending

There has been a lot of attention placed on “negative” campaign ads of late, especially in the Republican presidential nomination campaigns.

The claim — and it seems to be coming from across the political spectrum — is that this is a bad thing, and that it will likely get worse due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 case known as Citizens United.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court has gotten a bad rap for this decision. What the majority of the justices did with this decision was support free speech, something that I hope Americans would put a high value on.

The ruling changed long-standing rules regarding limitations on businesses and unions spending money to support or oppose candidates for office. The court in a 5-4 ruling said political spending is a form of free speech under the First Amendment, and the government can't keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or oppose candidates in elections as long as they did not directly contribute to candidates.

It was a reasonable ruling. Why shouldn't businesses and unions be able to express themselves in elections? The outcomes can directly affect them, just as they do all of us as individuals.

The ruling opened the door for the greatly increased spending for campaign advertising that we are seeing now. While often criticized for being “negative” — especially by candidates who are the target of them — there is no prohibition on them being “positive.”

There is a secondary element in the high court's ruling that is often ignored by critics of the decision — an element that came into focus here in Arizona this week when two state officials announced their support for proposed legislation to reform campaign spending reporting requirements.

While the Supreme Court justices wanted wide latitude on campaign spending, they also wanted voters to know who was doing the spending. So they permitted the government to continue to require disclosure of who is funding the campaign ads.

It is an important safeguard. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, “This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

In other words, if you know who is paying for the ad, you can decide whether you trust what they are saying.

That's why Arizona — in the wake of the court ruling — passed a law that requires businesses and unions to report their campaign spending.

Unfortunately, say Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Attorney General Tom Horne, that law was flawed in that some have been able avoid the intended reporting requirements. They say some “corporations” are not truly businesses but are being formed solely to influence elections. They want these non-businesses to be defined as political committees with tougher reporting requirements.

It wasn't the intention of the Supreme Court to allow political operatives to hide behind false corporations, so if that is happening, it is proper to address the situation.

But care needs to be taken in any legislation to ensure it does not adversely affect legitimate businesses and unions that are simply exercising their free speech rights as allowed under the Supreme Court decision.

Terry Ross is director of the Yuma Sun's News and Information Center. Email: tross@yumasun.com. Telephone: 539-6870. Facebook: facebook.com/YSTerryRoss. Twitter: twitter.com/@YSTerryRoss.