The First Amendment Applies to Movies Too

One of the tropes of liberalism is that conservatives exist to ratify liberal policies. The wily Professor Rosen of George Washington University (and the New Republic) has taken this tack in warning John Roberts off from striking down the restrictions on corporate contributions to political campaigns.

Judge Roberts, should he be one of the shrinking minority that still reads the New York Times, ought to resist the temptation.  What Professor Rosen fails to explain to Times readers is that the case at issue Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission criminalizes a movie.  The law in question does nothing to limit campaign expenditures by a campaign.  It forbids an independent corporation to mention a candidate in the months prior to an election.   Citizens United involves a movie about Hillary Clinton, released too close to campaign season.

What constitutional warrant allows the government to forbid citizens from banding together, however much money they have, to influence public arguments?  No law prevents rich people or unions from buying the New York Times or CBS. The Washington Post is, right now, straining with might and main, to destroy Robert McDonnell’s quest for Virginia governor and pull the hapless Creigh Deeds across the finish line.  How does that differ from corporate contributions and a movie critical of Hillary Clinton?

Some portion of the law challenged in Citizens United is going down. The principle involved is so important, and so central to constitutional concerns, that even Earl Warren could not miss it. John Roberts has nothing to fear from enforcing the constitution in this case. Chief Justice Warren is in his grave more than thirty years but his bad decisions haunt us still.  That should be no reason for John Roberts to fail to make good ones.