Column: Court's double standard on free speech

Armed with 535 letters, one addressed to each member of Congress, Ruskin mail carrier Doug Hughes piloted a small gyrocopter onto the U.S. Capitol's front lawn in April. His message to the lawmakers? It's time to reform our nation's pay-to-play system of money in politics and to give everyday people a bigger voice.

Shortly afterward, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who chairs the House committee that oversees campaign finance reform, among other things, said Hughes "should have been blown out of the air."

Hughes, 62, lost his job with the U.S. Postal Service after the incident. He pleaded guilty to a single felony late last week — flying a gyrocopter without a license. It could result in up to three years in prison, though he hopes for probation when he is sentenced in April.

At the same time, five protesters from 99Rise, which supports significant changes to our campaign finance system, are also awaiting sentencing. A month before Hughes landed his gyrocopter, one of them interrupted a Supreme Court hearing, declaring to the packed chamber, "We rise to demand democracy. One person, one vote."

Supreme Court police swiftly escorted her away as four fellow activists stood one by one, shouting and singing protests including "Reverse McCutcheon. Overturn Citizens United," two cases in which the court gave big donors more ability to influence politics. The protesters face charges that could lead to up to a year in jail and fines of up to $100,000.

Hughes and the 99Risers were entering into a longtime American tradition, the nonviolent protest of injustice when the conventional political channels of governance become unresponsive. Unlike the deep-pocket special interests or the new billionaire political bosses, they can neither afford high-priced lobbyists to make their case, nor saturate the airwaves with their TV ads.

Protests in the chambers of the Supreme Court and the landing on the lawn of the Capitol have brought the court face to face with a double standard on speech rights and shone a spotlight on the political implications of the current Supreme Court's views on the First Amendment.

During its tenure, the Roberts court has gone to great lengths to protect speech rights. Writing for the majority in 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts opined that grieving parents of a soldier must endure hateful protests at their son's funeral: "As a nation we have chosen … to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

In 2014, the court held that women seeking abortions may not be shielded from the speech of abortion opponents as they enter clinics.

But when dissent speech is voiced in the court's own arena, Supreme Court justices enjoy privileged protections from critical views. Supreme Court police take a hard line on displays of political messages inside the court and there is a ban on rallies and protests on the plaza surrounding the court.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Loading...

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

Contrast this with the court's treatment of campaign money. In case after case, the same five justices have ruled to loosen nearly all restraints, creating a stratum of super donors who are reshaping elections. By equating campaign checks with free speech, this court has given its blessing to a system in which the voices of everyday American are hushed, counting for little within the money-marinated campaign world.

In the wake of a series of court decisions that have accelerated deep-pocket spending in political elections, Americans are united across the political spectrum in believing that the influence of money in politics is a worrisome problem.

Just two weeks ago, voters in Seattle and Maine, by landslide margins, ushered in reforms that will raise up the voices of everyday citizens in elections, and similar initiatives are likely to be on the ballot across the country in 2016. Yet in Washington, D.C., Congress is gridlocked when it comes to moving even small reforms forward. In the presidential race, candidates mostly just give the broken system lip service without offering solutions, while debate moderators ignore the issue almost entirely. So it is no wonder that people have begun to find new ways to make their voices heard.

In the Roberts court world of unlimited campaign spending, it is the speech of those who lack political clout that is the most important to protect. The most substantial and successful challenges to inequalities in the structure of power in our democracy, from economic fairness to civil rights, have always been hastened by such action. In today's struggle for money-in-politics reform, that's worth remembering.

Nick Nyhart is president and CEO of Every Voice Center, a national nonpartisan organization that wants to raise the voices of everyday people in American democracy. He wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.