The First Amendment's assembly and petition clauses--eviscerated by Big Money?

Robert Jensen
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu


copyright Robert Jensen 2005

Fredericksburg (VA) Free Lance-Star, December 4, 2005.


AUSTIN, Texas--While the great battles fought over the First Amendment's
religion and free-speech/-press clauses are some of the most inspiring stories
told 'round the legal campfire, the amendment's assembly and petition clauses
are mostly a forgotten footnote.

There has been no great legal battle in easy memory over the right "to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances." In 1939, the Supreme Court decided
a case, Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, that definitively
established "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in public space,
and there's been little discussion since.

Yet both these First Amendment footnotes offer important lessons about the more
subtle--and what today are more crucial--obstacles to meaningful democracy that
come with our economic system.

The right to petition the government is not really in question in a modern
nation-state based on democratic principles. While a king, whose legitimacy was
grounded in the concept of divine-right monarchy, might have contested his
subjects' rights to press political demands, citizens in a democracy have an
inherent right to petition those politicians who are supposed to serve us.

But a question nags: Are all petitions received by our leaders given equal
weight? Are rich and poor alike going to be heard? The answer is painfully
obvious.

Two realities distort the right of petition in the real world.

First is the reality that political campaigns are exercises in fundraising. For
example, 96 percent of House and 91 percent of Senate races in 2004 were won by
the candidate who spent the most. Those who provide that funding have an
advantage: Money equals access, which means that when the campaign is over,
some petitions are more equal than others.

Debates about the constitutionality of campaign-finance reform measures that
try to deal with the distorting influence of big money are typically framed by
the question of whether they limit the freedom of speech of contributors or
candidates. But we might start to think of such reforms as protection of the
right of petition.

Second, those who hire well-connected (and expensive) lobbyists to deliver a
petition have an advantage. Recent news has focused on how lobbyists Jack
Abramoff and Michael Scanlon allegedly defrauded their own clients, but the
main problem with the lobbying industry is the routine way it skews the
political process toward those who can afford to hire the big guns to influence
policy.

Should we place stricter limits on paid lobbyists? Some argue it is a
restriction on political freedom to limit anyone's right to spend money in
attempts to influence public policy. But in a world in which the playing field
is so tilted toward the wealthy, can we pretend that traditional libertarian
defenses of money-as-speech can adequately address the contemporary political
crisis?

Moreover, while the right to peaceably assemble is established in law, there
remain struggles to ensure that the right to do so isn't undermined by
sophisticated police tactics that appear to allow public protests but use
pre-emptive arrest, physical barriers, and "free-speech zones" to limit
protesters' ability to engage the public. Such heavy-handed operations were
effective in Miami during the protests of the 2003 meetings about the Free
Trade Area of the Americas and in New York during the 2004 Republican National
Convention.

Yet the most disturbing threat to freedom of assembly isn't from the ways in
which police officers restrict movement in public space, but from the
disappearance of public space itself. Our conception of political assembly is
rooted in a geography that is increasingly rare--the town square, the public
meeting ground, a collective space in which people gather expecting political
engagement.

Today the space that is most public is privatized: the shopping mall. If one
wanted to distribute a political pamphlet and engage fellow citizens in
conversation about the issues of the day, the mall would be the optimal site--a
place where people of all ages and classes gather for commercial and social
purposes.

But while the mall is a very public place in some senses, it is private
property and hence not governed by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court
has declined to impose on the owners of these public spaces the requirement to
honor people's assembly and speech rights there (though they left the door open
for states to find such a right in their own constitutions). When our lives in
public are increasingly conducted in privatized space, are conventional
understandings of "public" and "private" adequate for a democracy?

Both these First Amendment freedoms illustrate the paradox of U.S. politics. On
one hand, we have extensive formal guarantees of political freedoms that have
been hard-won by dissidents and progressive political movements that pressed
the courts and legislatures to expand the scope of freedom. But the
concentration of wealth in corporate capitalism means that those formal
freedoms--while never irrelevant--are increasingly less important in a world in
which money is necessary to amplify our voices in mass media.

The distortion of a political process by our economic system is also obvious in
the realm of the speech and press clauses of the First Amendment, where we face
tough questions about how to counter the increasing concentration of media
ownership in a shrinking number of corporations, and whether full First
Amendment protection should extend to commercial advertising.

If First Amendment debates are to be productive--if they are to be part of a
process that helps us re-energize a political system that an increasing number
of people feel is irrelevant to their lives--we will have to come to terms with
the inherent incompatibility of capitalism and democracy. The former is a
wealth-concentrating system that also concentrates political power, while the
latter is premised on the assumption of the diffusion of power.

To date, the Supreme Court has ignored this simple reality, as has most of U.S.
society. Even the self-proclaimed guardian of freedom, the American Civil
Liberties Union, has trouble thinking straight about the problems for democracy
that capitalism creates.

But if the First Amendment is to be part of a real democratic future--one in
which ordinary people have a meaningful role in the formation of public policy,
not simply a place in the political stadium as spectators--lawmakers and judges
will have to come to terms with this basic contradiction.

It is unlikely they will confront the issue unless We the People force them to.

  ----------------------------

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center (http://thirdcoastactivist.org), and the author of The Heart of Whiteness:  Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.

BACK TO FREE-LANCE ARTICLES

BACK TO ROBERT W. JENSEN'S HOME PAGE