Criminalizing Political Speech

CATCHING UP
Today I played a game of catch-up with myself, plowing through a few newspapers that I had permitted to ferment too long on my coffee table.  It was in the Saturday/Sunday, October 11/12, 2014 edition of the Wall Street Journal - the best thing I read each day - that I found on the Opinion page a commentary by David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Andrew Grossman titled, "Criminalizing Political Speech In Wisconsin".  Those of you who subscribe to the Journal can just click on that title and log in.  The rest of you will just have to be satisfied with my observations.  And, you can read a summary of the case HERE, if you wish.

ATTORNEYS
Both authors are attorneys with the firm of Baker Hostetler LLP.  Rivkin served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

HELLO!  WHAT'S THIS?
I cannot quote much verbatim from the article without violating their copyright, but it begins with this paragraph:

"The criminalization of politics is bad enough - just ask Texas Gov. Rick Perry - but a new turn to target citizens as well threatens to permanently warp our political discourse.  Like it or not, federal courts will have to intervene to uphold Americans' First Amendment rights against win-at-any-cost politics"

Well, the title plus that paragraph got my attention, as you might imagine.

SCOTT WALKER'S SUPPORTERS

The article primarily covers a recent  attempt aimed at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his supporters, including baseless criminal charges and extraordinary investigations apparently aimed at suppressing their constitutionally-guaranteed right of free political speech.

Apparently, in May a district court in Wisconsin blocked investigations of some of Walker's supporters that were "viewpoint-based retaliation for the advocacy in support of Gov. Walker's agenda in blatant violation of their First Amendment rights".

However, in September an appeals court reversed that decision on the view that federal courts have no business interfering in state criminal investigations.

UH-OH...
The article ends with the following statements:

"After Wisconsin, the temptation to use the law as a political weapon may prove irresistible.

The casualty is citizens' ability  to speak out on matters of public importance and interact with their elected representatives, rights which are at the very core of the First Amendment's protections.  Federal courts exist to enforce federal rights, particularly when they are under siege by state officials.  If the federal judges shirk that duty, it will only embolden those bent on misusing criminal law to silence their opponents."

STIFLES CRITICISM...
My thoughts turned to our current situation in Costa Mesa, where our mayor, Jim Righeimer, has systematically attempted to quash criticism by bifurcating public comments at council meetings, forcing many of those who wish to address their elected leaders on items they feel are important to themselves and the community to cool their heels until the very end of the meetings.  That means that a person might be expected to arrive at 6:00 p.m., dutifully fill out a comment card, then learn that the random luck of the draw has placed him at the end of the pack - that they were not one of the lucky 10 speakers permitted to address the council while the audience is relatively full and the folks watching at home are still attentive.  No, they will have to wait until very end of the meeting - many times that means past midnight - to speak their piece.  More than a few have chosen to leave rather than stick around, which accomplished Righeimer's goal of quashing criticism.

...AND INTERRUPTS
Additionally, the mayor has frequently chosen to interrupt speakers, taking big chunks of their valuable 3 minutes to ask questions or just throw them off their pace.  Yes, he frequently says he will add time for them, but the deed is done.  Folks not experienced with public speaking get rattled, lose their train of thought and their message is garbled and lost.

I KNOW FIRST HAND...
Beyond that, and more in tune with the Wall Street Journal article, I have been on the receiving end of warnings from the mayor's lawyer in the past, telling me I couldn't speak about three items in his background - even though I had NOT done so and had NO plan to do so.  I was threatened with a lawsuit if I did address those three issues.  This is known as a SLAPP lawsuit - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.  It was a chilling experience and caused me to pause.

CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS...
However, shortly thereafter Righeimer himself began to speak out on the issues, so I contacted that attorney and told him he couldn't have it both ways - that I can't address the issues but his client can.  I then began to address those issues as I felt appropriate and heard not another word from the lawyer.

BULLYING
This was my first personal experience with the bully that is Jim Righeimer, but it certainly was not my last.  Since then I've watched him on the dais bully, chide, berate, interrupt, vilify and threaten more than one speaker.  I've seen him complain about how long public comments took, then go on 30 minute rants of his own, sucking up valuable council time.

NOT SUITED FOR THE JOB
With each passing meeting it is more and more clear that Righeimer is not suited for public office.  He uses his position of power exactly as a dictator uses it.  He knows he has three votes, so doesn't even bother with the formality of presenting issues for discussion - he just decides what he wants to do, then does it.

IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE
It's time for the voters of this city to return control of their government to mature, thoughtful leadership.  It's time to return control to elected leaders who will listen to their constituents - all of them, not just a select few.  It's time to show Righeimer the door and elect two mature, experienced leaders.  It's time to end the oppressive, dictatorial reign of Jim Righeimer and elect Jay Humphrey and Katrina Foley to the Costa Mesa City Council.