Two questions:
- If the U.S. Supreme Court believes the First Amendment guarantees election candidates the right to get unlimited campaign donations from corporations, unions and non-profits, would it support a candidate’s right to use the First Amendment to protect a likely racist statement on a ballot?
- Has the election of President Barack Obama elevated racial tension in the U.S.?
The first question involves a decision made by Wisconsin state election officials. They banned a Milwaukee city assembly candidate’s attempt to run using the slogan “NOT the ‘whiteman's bitch’” on the ballot.
Independents get a five-word “statement of purpose” on the ballot to explain to voters their campaign focus.
Ieshuh Griffin, an independent candidate, told media outlets she plans to sue the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board under the First Amendment. Griffin submitted her statement but board members rejected it.
“It's my constitutional right to freedom of speech,” she told news outlets.
Constitutional issues aside, the incident is a segue to the second question.
The Obama election was heralded by many as the advent of a new era of improved race relations.
Yet, each day the news appears to discount that notion.
A black employee who resigned from the Agriculture Department claims the White House forced her out after remarks she made during a speech, remarks political conservatives called “racist.”
Shirley Sherrod, the former Georgia director of Rural Development, received a personal apology from the president. And she was offered a new job, which she turned down. All this transpired because a video of her entire speech showed that her remarks were taken out of context by a blogger who posted a snippet of the speech online.
Meanwhile, the NAACP and the Tea Party remain at odds about the black advocacy group’s accusation that the party is being driven by racist sentiments.
So, a third question: “Can’t we all just get along — regardless of race?”
Resources:
- http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/98941309.html
- http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/elections/state/candidate/...
- http://www.cbs58.com/index.php?aid=13297
- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/...
- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/...
- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federaleye/...
- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/politics/23sherrod.html
- http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates/...
In the video she discusses an encounter she had with a white farmer 24 years ago, and how that experience inspired her views of equality. It was a simple story of how something changed her life and helped her to do the things she's done in her life. To answer the question race will always be a problem and will never change.
Thanks for your post. I agree with this: "I believe,that we will begin to "get along" better, regardless of race, when the power of government is not based on race." To clarify what you state that you do not understand: A law allows candidates to make a statement on a ballot. When government does not like the statement because it deems the statement "racist," it removes one candidate's statement. So, if the Supreme Court were to face a ruling on that issue, how would it rule? In light of its decision to allow windfall spending on campaigns because spending money on a campaign is protected by the First Amendment — "money" is speech — It would seem that real "speech" — a statement on a ballot — even a "racist" one — would enjoy First Amendment protection, too. I hope that makes it clearer. And wouldn't you agree?
I think your question stands alone quite well without the reference to a recent SCOTUS decision. That is, if a government provides space on a ballot for a candidate comment, can it, or even should it, restrict the comment in any way (other than length)? I believe we agree that the answer should be NO. Now, if it were up to me whether to allow a statement on the ballot, I definitely would not.
I should probably not have as much faith in the American as I am about to admit. But I think voters would see the statement for what it is and act accordingly, the Marketplace of Ideas at work. Stop laughing! Thanks for coming back. Mac
In answer to your final question, I believe,that we will begin to "get along" better, regardless of race, when the power of government is not based on race. As to question 1, I cannot understand why you segue from a decision about spending money on campaigns to something about "racist" statements. As to question 2, President Obama himself specifically advertises his race and even makes suggestions that race matters in whether a judge will make "good" decisions. The very act of injecting such into the public debate causes there to be more attention to race.
Post new comment