Americans cherish the right to speak out about elections

We do not burn books. It is as simple as that. Greater Media Newspapers columnistGreg Bean’s article castigating the recent Supreme Court decision Citizens United rested on a principle as old as the Republic itself. The government cannot censor materials published by American citizens, no matter how rich or powerful they are. This is as true for a small corporation making $1 million as it is for the billionaire Bill Gates.

The problem with journalists like Mr. Bean editorializing about the law is the reason why traditional media is slowly dying. They do not understand the issue they are talking about and usually use such overheated rhetoric as to completely cloud the fundamental principles at hand.

Even Linda Greenhouse, the long-respected journalist covering the Supreme Court from The New York Times, understands when she called President Obama’s State of the Union comments “imprecise.” I call the President and Mr. Bean’s comments either duplicitous or completely ignorant.

To quote Ms. Greenhouse: “The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books.

“Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.

“It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.”

The question was fairly easy. Speech, even those we vigorously disagree with, is a protected right all Americans have. Whether the speech is from an individual or a group, this principle is one infused into the Constitution and precedents of the laws of America.

I wonder how Mr. Bean would respond to a law that said a newspaper, being a supposedly “unbiased” source of news, was not allowed to endorse a candidate because it could unduly “influence” voters? Surely, the media can influence an electorate as powerfully as a corporation can. (Assuming a newspaper can shield itself from the corporations of which they, themselves are usually a part of).

We are Americans. We do not ban books, movies, news articles of our citizens, nor do we prohibit them from gathering their assets to promote such ideas, especially when it comes to criticizing our government and leaders. It is an inheritance we all share. Shame on the President and Mr. Bean for forgetting that ideal in the heat of their partisan passions.

Richard Goldberg

Marlboro