Byline: George F. Will
The First Amendment vs. an Arizona law.
For the first Amendment and its friends, this has been a fine year. It began with a less-than-momentous but welcome Supreme Court ruling that Barack Obama called "devastating to the public interest." And last week the court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of a state campaign-finance law patently designed to decrease the amount of political speech Arizonans can hear. Schemes for rationing and suppressing such speech continue to crumble.
During the Jan. 27 State of the Union address, television showed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito murmuring "not true" when Barack Obama told the nation something that was not true. Six days earlier, the court, in the Citizens United case, ruled that because the First Amendment proscribes laws limiting political speech, it proscribes laws that outlaw independent candidate-related advocacy by groups of Americans organized as corporations. The court had held in 2007 that the First Amendment protects issue advocacy by corporations.
The president had to know he was deceiving the nation when he said this "reversed a century of law." The 1907 law forbidding direct corporate contributions to candidates still stands. Writing in The Weekly Standard, William R. Maurer of the Institute for Justice explains the actual significance of Citizens United: "Corporations and unions are not individuals, but they are made up of individuals who have banded together for common purposes -- To hold that First Amendment rights dissipate the minute one person begins to act in concert with another would neuter the Bill of Rights."
Arizona's law punishes candidates who do not accept taxpayer funding and the limits on spending that come with it. Those are limits on what most political spending finances--the dissemination of political speech. Taxpayer-funded candidates receive additional tax dollars--up to double their original infusion--to match funds raised by candidates who, relying on voluntary contributions, spend above the limits.
There is an astonishing additional provision to punish political speech the government disfavors: When independent political groups--groups that cannot coordinate with, let alone be controlled by, candidates--spend what the …