10/4/2006
Your freedom of speech - or my country, my democracy?
There comes a point where ones man’s freedom tromps another man’s freedom. Simple “conflicts of freedoms” - like trespassing and jaywalking – to the more obvious violations of burglary and assault. It’s the perpetual debate – where does one man’s freedom end and the other’s begin?
At the risk of shocking free speech advocates everywhere, perhaps this is the era in which Americans must seriously address the impact of allowing anything and everything in elections, in the name of free speech.
All kinds of campaign money from all kinds of people. And any and all kinds of insulting, untrue, twisted speech – otherwise known as negative advertising.
For those of you free speech advocates, catatonic at the mere suggestion of regulating campaign ads, stop reading now and cuddle with Senator McConnell, who hasn’t found a single source of campaign funds he doesn’t like.
The struggle is between freedom of expression - and civil, legitimate elections.
Mexico’s Federal Election Institute (IFE) has taken a stab at addressing that struggle, and by the measure of most global analysts, has indeed brought clean, meaningful elections to Mexico.
Founded via congressional legislation in 1990, the IFE is widely recognized as a successful, effective independent monitor of campaigns in Mexico. Its legitimacy and impartiality was tested repeatedly in the close July presidential election that resulted in recounts and challenges very similar to our Bush-Gore Florida scenario.
In this last election as well, in the interest of fair and honest elections, the IFE ruled some television spots were either too false or too rude to be aired.
Before the elections, the president of IFE, Luis Carlos Ugalde, said “This council must maintain its tradition of saying yes to freedom of expression, yes to the maximum amount of criticism, but yes to criticism based on truth and yes to legitimate questions. We must say no to defamation, no to denigration, no to things taken out of context and to misinformation.” (NY Times, June 12, 2006) (free registration required)
Oh my. Envision it. The U.S. allowing the Word Police Patrol during elections.
Are IFE magistrates censors or are they doing everything that needs to be done to encourage strong, truthful, civil, open public debate?
Consider the alternatives. Insulting ads. Severely limited discussion of the issues. Disenchanted, uninformed voters. More and more money going to the networks to advertise this junk. More and more and more money raised from “big corporations” and lobbyists.
If the Word Police effectively maintained civility in elections – just think of it. All that campaign money would have to be used to honestly and openly inform the public. Maybe, just maybe, candidates wouldn’t need all those huge hordes of cash. Voila! Campaign Finance Reform as a side benefit.
Ok – who would do it, how would we get this done? In Mexico, the IFE is succeeding in structuring, defining an elections system that has gained the confidence of the Mexican people. Such a system of men and women with impeccable credentials would have to be – and be seen as – the Supreme Court of Elections.
Details, details. But just think about it……
Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net
COMMENTS
Yes! It is absolutely time that Republicans and Democrats agree to work together to clean up this negative ad mess. The heat of this election is too high right now to effectively move on the issue but as soon next month's voting is finished we all need to start applying pressure to lawmakers to improve things.
I would, however, replace "Word Police" with "Review Boards" in our requests. Also, we might suggest that they could start inexpensively for taxpayers by using all those FISA court judges that Mr. Bush doesn't seem to want to use for national security purposes!
Clif Morton (Wed Oct 04 12:45:15 2006)
|
