Skip to main content

Friends Of The First Amendment Should Oppose SEEC Citation

The charge made by Connecticut’s  State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC ) against State Representative Rob Sampson and State Senator Joe Markley is that the two made statements in joint campaign mailers that, according to a story by Christine Stewart in CTNewsJunkie, “were cast in such a way to oppose an individual [Governor Dannel Malloy] who was running for statewide office in 2014. He said by joining the Citizens Election Program and receiving tens of thousands of dollars to run their campaign meant they agreed to restrict their spending to candidates who were in the race.”

Examples of the offending statements were listed by Sampson and Markley in a media release:


"Rob & Joe have consistently fought Governor Malloy’s agenda and have tried to restore Common Sense and fiscal responsibility in state government.

"Rob has fought Governor Malloy’s ‘Bad for Connecticut Agenda’, opposing Huge Increases in Government Spending, the Highest Tax Increase in Connecticut History, the New Britain to Hartford Busway, the Repeal of the Death Penalty, and the Early Release of Violent Criminals.

"Rob Sampson wants a New Direction and rejects Governor Malloy’s policies!

"It’s time to change course and STOP Governor Malloy and the majority Democrat’s dangerous agenda!

"Sampson has been a clear and consistent voice for common sense in Hartford, fighting Governor Malloy’s destructive policies of wasteful spending and high taxes.

"I am also proud to have led the fight against the many bad policies put forth by Gov. Malloy and the Democrats in Hartford."

There is a difference, most objective observers will agree, between mentioning Malloy’s policies in a campaign statement and opposing Malloy’s candidacy during a campaign in which Malloy is also running for office. Despite denials from SEEC lawyers, a blanket suppression of free speech – especially when utterances involve political statements – necessarily involves First Amendment rights, a breastplate of free speech that courts, when they are not acting at the behest of party politicians, are likely to defend vigorously, if only because free speech rights are indivisible, and a suppression of political speech on any occasion always, inferentially, affects a free press. Why should a politician be denied a right freely exercised by, say, an editorial writer – most especially when critical statements are made of politicians in the midst of campaigns?

Suppose the impossible; suppose the Hartford Courant had written in an editorial during the 2014 campaign -- when Malloy, Sampson and Markley were all running for office -- "Representative Samson and Senator Markley have consistently fought Governor Malloy’s agenda and have tried to restore Common Sense and fiscal responsibility in state government." Would the SEEC have cited Sampson and Markley had the two jointly quoted the Courant in a campaign mailing?

Even under the controlling statute, which very well may deprive Connecticut politicians of their imprescriptible First Amendment rights, the statements cited by the SEEC are harmless, because they do NOT urge the defeat of Malloy in a campaign in which Malloy is running for office.  None of the statements cited by the SEEC are untrue and malicious, two standards that must be met to show that a statement made even by a non-politician is libelous and therefore falls outside the protection of the First Amendment. The libel requirements are not easily met because the protections offered by the First Amendment – especially in cases of political speech – should not be easily surmounted.

The free speech bar set by the SEEC is at ground level. One may easily step over it.  Mr. Sampson argued before the SEEC that the joint statements he and Markley made in campaign literature were directed at the POLICIES of the Malloy administration, a common subject in campaigns. Now, policies, as everyone knows, are joint ventures that involve the governor, members of the governor’s party, legislators and possibly even members of the commentariate lounging in partisan pockets who approve the policies targeted by Sampson and Markley. To say  "Rob has fought Governor Malloy’s ‘Bad for Connecticut Agenda’, opposing Huge Increases in Government Spending, the Highest Tax Increase in Connecticut History, the New Britain to Hartford Busway, the Repeal of the Death Penalty, and the Early Release of Violent Criminals," is shorthand notation. Sampson is not here making a campaign pitch for the election of Malloy’s Republican gubernatorial opponent. He is displaying his own political strengths by mentioning in detail policies that will distinguish him from a Democratic Party opponent who may support the Malloy agenda.

In its defense of an administrative veto of First Amendment free speech rights, the SEEC did not pause to discuss whether the statements it would unconstitutionally proscribe were true or not. There is little doubt today that Malloy’s agenda has been “bad for Connecticut.” It was bad for Connecticut in 2012 as well. The SEEC does not care a whit whether it is proscribing true, non-malicious political statements. Nor does the SEEC care that its citation and any adverse decision derived from it would run afoul of the free speech rights of Sampson and Markley. Their duty, as SEEC members see it, is to deny tax supported election funds to any candidate for office who, during his election campaign, mentions a candidate from the opposite party who is also running for a different office during the same election period.

Candidate A may be denied funding from the citizens election program by SEEC if he or she mentions candidate B in a mailing – when candidate B is an opposition party member running for a different office. Virtually identical statements made by Sampson in 2012 are allowable; they may be proscribed in 2014 because Malloy was running for governor that year.  Samson notes, “I believe I was re-elected in 2012 because I made it clear to the voters that I opposed Malloy’s misguided policies.  I ran my 2014 campaign on the same premise, and used the same language in defining my positions.”


The SEEC citation relies on what logicians call a distinction without a difference, because critical statements that are true do not have an expiration date. The truth ought not to have an expiration date, nor should precious First Amendment rights be proscribed by administrators coloring outside the Constitutional box.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p