A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Sept. 14, on campaign laws and free speech:
When McCain-Feingold campaign finance was passed in 2002, its stated intention was to take money and corruption out of politics. In both these regards, it has failed.
In the meantime, its ambiguous and complex provisions have let loose a number of unintended consequences with a negative and chilling effect on free speech. So we are relieved that the Supreme Court is revisiting the issue. We hope this time around the court will prune the impact of campaign finance laws and relegate them to a more proper role.
At the center of this case is a blistering 2007 political documentary about then-candidate Hillary Clinton titled “Hillary The Movie.” The movie was produced by a group called Citizens United and was banned from the airwaves because McCain-Feingold campaign finance law prohibits corporations from funding political speech. Although a nonprofit corporation, Citizens United was still classified as a corporation.
In other words, the government’s case is that showing a film, simply because it has procured its funding from an unacceptable entity, can be considered illegal speech.
Well, then, how about other media? For-profit corporations produce timely and hard-hitting, politically motivated books about candidates all the time. McCain-Feingold law bans the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” of political material 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election.
So could the Federal Election Commission ban political books? The answer, incredibly enough, is yes.
When Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart earlier this year whether an electronic book could be banned in the run-up to an election, he responded, ” … a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required to use Political Action Committee funds to publish the book.”
The government backed off this position at a hearing last week, but the damage had been done.
Most Americans react in disgust to the idea of “banning a book.” But why should it be any more acceptable for the FEC to ban a movie on the grounds that it has a political message? Why should the FEC even decide what constitutes a political message? Yes, “Hillary The Movie” amounted to transparent political electioneering, but quite often messaging can be subtle. Where does this kind of regulation end?
Fortunately we may not find out. It looks as if the Supreme Court will reject regulation of the movie and, according to experts watching the proceedings, perhaps even overrule two earlier decisions that restrict the manner in which corporations and unions take part in campaigns. How broadly the court will rule is what’s important now.
When Solicitor General Elena Kagan was making a case for the FEC to keep jurisdiction over regulating the distribution of political materials, she claimed that “the FEC has never applied this statute to a book.” This isn’t enough to comfort us. Chief Justice Roberts’ reply to Kagan was on point: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.”
We certainly hope not.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., Sept. 11, on gun rights:
If Congress were to pass a law that required voters to get permission, in writing, from government before going to the polls, citizens likely would be up in arms, at least figuratively speaking. For some, figuratively might be the only way they could take up arms against injustice.
Since the Brady Firearms Act required prospective gun buyers to pass a National Instant Check System background check before they were allowed to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, almost 1.8 million people have been denied. That’s not to say they were all criminals looking to buy a gun for their next robbery. (Some undoubtedly were; genius-level criminal masterminds are not nearly as common in real life as they are in fiction.) But if statistics from 2008 are any indication, an NCIS denial isn’t proof-positive that one is a criminal, a fugitive or anyone else legally barred from owning a firearm.
According to The New Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation, a new Bureau of Justice Statistics report says that last year 147,000 people were turned down for a variety of reasons. Of those, 28,000 appealed their denials; 11,000 of them were overturned, allowing those law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In Colorado, 1,599 would-be buyers were denied; 1,141 were reversed on appeal. That’s a pretty slipshod system.
There are two ways to look at this issue. One is that 136,000 people whom the government has decided, in many cases through due process, should not own firearms were prevented from buying one from a licensed gun dealer. The other is that 11,000 Americans were denied their rights, if only temporarily. Is that acceptable? For many people, it likely is.
They believe that stepping on people’s rights when firearms are concerned is an issue in which some illusion of safety trumps all else. They’ll point to the 136,000 who were prevented from buying a gun and using it to commit crimes. Setting aside the fact that not all those people would have committed crimes with a firearm, that’s no reason to deny others their rights. This country was founded on the notion that one’s rights were to be protected by the government until one has shown it necessary to restrict them, such as through criminal activity, mental incapacity or for some other reason.
Few Americans would sit by idly if even a relative handful of voters were improperly prevented from voting on Election Day. Oh, it would all be cleared up in a few weeks if they appealed the decision, but by then the election would be over. The same could be true for someone wishing to buy a gun for protection; an attack might have already occurred before the government decided it was in the wrong. For that person, a right delayed is certainly a right denied.
This isn’t to say that anyone and everyone should be able to own a gun. There are certainly those who have demonstrated through criminal activity and other behaviors that they shouldn’t own firearms. But if society is going to have a system in place to weed out those individuals, the system must take pains to ensure it blocks only those who have shown they shouldn’t own guns. To do otherwise robs some people of their rights.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Greeley Tribune, Sept. 13, on the notion that the Weld County man who threatened to kill horses needs to be financially accountable:
There are many disturbing aspects of a situation last week, where 23 horses were taken by Weld County officials from the property of a man who threatened to kill the animals.
It all started when Trenton Parker said he would kill his horses rather than neglect them.
Parker was being ordered to serve a 90-day jail sentence for failure to clean up his property a few miles southeast of Fort Lupton.
Parker claimed he had no way to feed and take care of the horses during his impending incarceration. He threatened not only to shoot them, but to bludgeon them to death rather than leave them to starve.
To say Parker, who has a criminal record, put the county in a bad situation is an understatement.
If county officials called Parker’s bluff, refusing to respond, and he killed even one horse, the sheriff’s office would have been accused of failing to prevent the crime. It would not only have been unfortunate for the horse, but would have created a public relations nightmare for the county.
However, the option chosen, which was to take the horses from Parker’s property before any damage could be inflicted, has its own problems.
First, the county was forced to care for the animals at taxpayers’ expense for more than a week. Friday, a judge ordered the horses be turned over to the commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture. It’s not clear what will happen to the horses now. Still, they are being cared for by taxpayer dollars.
That is not only unfair, it is unreasonable. Parker should be ordered by the court to reimburse the county and the state for the care of his horses. And if he refuses, a lien should be placed on his property until he pays up. No way should taxpayers be asked to foot the bill for his foolishness.
In addition, the rescue of the horses could set a dangerous precedent. Could other residents who are no longer able or want to care for their animals pull a similar stunt? We certainly hope not.
Parker, obviously, is to blame for this situation. If he was really concerned about the welfare of the animals, he would have sought out shelters and private residents to take them. He admitted to playing a “game” with the county, in which he now sees himself as the winner. Parker used this opportunity to make a spectacle of his situation and bring attention to himself.
But there is no way he should be off the hook, either. Parker needs to pay up, and our justice system needs to make sure that happens.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., Sept. 14, on Aspen and bears:
Human tolerance for bears in and around Aspen may be declining in the wake of Thursday’s attack on a man in his home—the third bear attack on a person in as many weeks in Aspen. The victim in Thursday’s attack was hospitalized, although his injuries weren’t believed to be life-threatening. Two Aspen-area women were attacked by bears in August, one when a bear entered her home and the second as the woman sunbathed on her deck.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t universal acceptance earlier this summer of municipal and county rules about the proper disposal of garbage, and that made Aspen an attractive eatery for hungry bears.
As a result, many bears that might otherwise have stayed in more remote country developed a passion for Pitkin County neighborhoods. And the consequences for the bears have not been good.
As The Daily Sentinel’s Dave Buchanan pointed out in articles over the weekend, nine bears have been killed in Aspen this summer. Many more have been relocated, but that may only be a temporary fix. Wildlife experts say that once a bear learns where to find easily available human food, they quickly become adept at things like opening doors and breaking windows. And they will return to human communities after being dropped in remote areas because they know the food is easier to find where people live.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife has worked with Pitkin County and Aspen city officials to respond to bear reports as quickly as possible. But more will likely have to be done. Stricter enforcement of trash regulations appear in order. But many of the bears that have already developed a taste for Aspen’s waste will likely have to be euthanized as they return repeatedly to the human neighborhoods.
Bears are both the attackers and victims in this unfortunate tale.
Editorial:
