WELCOME to the debut of “The Truth Is!”, a blog of reporting and commentary that aims to be informative, thoughtful and provocative. At least initially, the blog will have a strong heartland flavor by virtue of the connection of a number of us to Cowles family journalism. I am former editor of the Des Moines Register’s opinion pages. Another contributor, Michael Gartner, is former editor of the paper; he later served as president of NBC News. Another former Register editor who has agreed to contribute, Geneva Overholser, is director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg school of journalism. Followers of the blog will have access also to the work of Herbert Strentz of Des Moines, a close Register and other newspaper watcher who once headed Drake University’s journalism school. Bill Leonard, a longtime Register editorial writer, will add insights.

“The Truth Is!” will be supervised by my daughter, Marcia Wolff, a communications lawyer for 20 years with Arnold and Porter (Washington, D.C.). Invaluable technical assistance in assembling and maintaining the blog is provided by my grandsons Julian Cranberg, a college first-year, and Daniel Wolff, a high school senior.

If you detect a whiff of nepotism in this operation, so be it. All of it is strictly a labor of love. —Gil Cranberg

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Gilbert Cranberg: HIGH COURT’S INVITATION TO CORRUPTION

The New York Times on March 18 described it as a “nightmare scenario” and an “extraordinary case” that opens up “new frontiers of political corruption.” Indeed it does. For in Utah, political operatives essentially hung a for sale sign on the attorney general’s office and urged the payday lending industry to buy the office by surreptitiously contributing to the campaign of a candidate who let it be known he would be partial to the interests of the contributors.

The U.S. Supreme Court in its 2010 decision in Citizens United virtually invited this kind of corruption by poo-poohing the risks of corruption posed by campaign contributions. In dismissing the notion, the court wrote, “…we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Tell that to the folks in Utah victimized by the payday lenders’ scheme to take control of the attorney general’s office.

The Supreme Court in Citizens United made almost a fetish of the notion that money is speech. In so doing, it blinded itself to the corrupting potential of money. The overreaching in Utah ought to be a wake-up call to the high court’s justices to re-examine their flawed ruling in Citizens United.

A recent book by a brilliant First Amendment scholar, the late Professor Randall Bezanson of the University of Iowa College of Law, made a convincing case of the need for re-examination. Bezanson wrote of the Citizens United ruling, “…there is good reason to find it logically wanting, historically and textually arid, given to grand and broad statements of law and ultimately dissatisfying. The Court’s opinion never really gets to the substance of the corporate speech issue, instead escaping the need to grapple with text and history and theory by what proved to be a weak and unconvincing expedient of claiming that the decision had already been made in many Supreme Court decisions….With all respect, nothing could be further from the truth.”

So by all means let’s have a fresh look at Citizens United.

No comments: