Court Opinion

ID: 9421397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:58:07.068399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:30.015954
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black join,
dissenting.
We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesalé trade groups, consumers’ leagues, farmers’ unions, religious groups and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government.
Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important — vitally important — that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.
In United States v. C. I. O., 335 U. S. 106, 144, Mr. Justice Rutledge spoke of the importance of the First Amendment rights — freedom of expression and freedom of assembly — tó the integrity of our elections. “The most complete exercise of those rights,” he said, “is essential to the full, fair and untrammeled operation of the electoral process. To the extent they are curtailed the *594electorate is deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.”
What the Court does today greatly impairs those rights. It sustains an indictment charging no more than the use of union funds for broadcasting television programs that urge and endorse the selection of certain candidates for the Congress of the United States. The opinion of the Court places that advocacy in the setting of corrupt practices. The opinion generates an environment of evil-doing and points to the oppressions and misdeeds that have haunted elections in this country.
Making a speech endorsing a candidate for office does not, however, deserve to be identified with antisocial conduct. Until today political speech has never been considered a crime. The making of a political speech up to now has always been one of the preferred rights protected by the First Amendment. It usually costs money to communicate an idea to a large audience. But no one would seriously contend that the expenditure of money to print a newspaper deprives the publisher of freedom of the press. Nor can the fact that it costs money to make a speech — whether it be hiring a hall or purchasing time on the air — make the speech any the less an exercise of First Amendment rights. Yet this statute, as construed and applied in this indictment, makes criminal any “expenditure” by a union for the purpose of expressing its views on the issues of an election and the candidates. It would make no difference under this construction of the Act whether the union spokesman made his address from the platform of a hall, used a sound truck in the streets, or bought time on radio or television. In each case the mere “expenditure” of money to make the speech is an indictable offense. The principle applied today would make equally criminal the use by a union of its funds to print pamphlets for general distribution or to distribute political literature at large.
*595Can an Act so construed be constitutional in view of the command of the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law that abridges free speech or freedom of assembly?
The Court says that the answer on the constitutional issue must await the development of the facts at the trial.
It asks, “Did the broadcast reach the public at large or only those affiliated with appellee?” But the size of the audience has heretofore been deemed wholly irrelevant to First Amendment issues. One has a right to freedom of speech whether he talks to one person or to one thousand. One has a right to freedom of speech not only when he talks to his friends but also when he talks to the public. It is startling to learn that a union spokesman or the spokesman for a corporate interest has fewer constitutional rights when he talks to the public than when he talks to members of his group.
The Court asks whether the broadcast constituted “active electioneering” or simply stated “the record of particular candidates on economic issues.” What possible difference can it make under the First Amendment whether it was one or the other? The First Amendment covers the entire spectrum. It protects the impassioned plea of the orator as much as the quiet publication of the tabulations of the statistician or economist. If there is an innuendo that “active electioneering” by union spokesmen is not covered by the First Amendment, the opinion makes a sharp break with our political and constitutional heritage.
The Court asks, “Did the union sponsor the broadcast with the intent to affect the results of the election?” The purpose of speech is not only to inform but to incite to action. As Mr. Justice Holmes said in his dissent in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 673, “Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it *596is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at- its birth.” To draw a constitutional line between informing the people and inciting or persuading them and to suggest that one is protected and the other not by the First Amendment is to give constitutional dignity to an irrelevance. Any political speaker worth his salt intends to sway voters. His purpose to do so cannot possibly rob him of his First Amendment rights, unless we are to reduce that great guarantee of freedom to the protection of meaningless mouthings of ineffective speakers.
Finally, the Court asks whether the broadcast was “paid for out of the general dues of the union membership or may the funds be fairly said to have been obtained on a voluntary basis.” Behind this question is the idea that there may be a minority of union members who are of a different political school than their leaders and who object to the use of their union dues to espouse one political view. This is a question that concerns the internal management of union affairs. To date, unions have operated under a rule of the majority. Perhaps minority rights need protection. But this way of doing it is, indeed, burning down the house to roast the pig. All union expenditures for political discourse are banned because a minority might object.
When the exercise of First Amendment rights is tangled with conduct which government may regulate, we refuse to allow the First Amendment rights to be sacrificed merely because some evil may result. Our insistence is that the regulatory measure be “narrowly drawn” to meet the evil that the government can control. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 311. Or as the Court said in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364-365, when speaking of First Amendment rights, “. . . the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing *597with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed.”
If minorities need protection against the use of union funds for political speech-making, there are ways of reaching that end without denying the majority their First Amendment rights.1
First Amendment rights are not merely curtailed by the construction of the Act which the Court adopts. Today’s ruling abolishes First Amendment rights on a wholesale basis. Protection of minority groups, if any, can be no excuse. The Act is not “narrowly drawn” to meet that abuse.
Some may think that one group or another should not express its views in an election because it is too powerful, because it advocates unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless action. But these are not justifications for withholding First Amendment rights from any group — labor or corporate. Cf. United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41. First Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy.
These constitutional questions are so grave that the least we should do is to construe this Act, as we have in comparable situations (United States v. C. I. O., supra; *598United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41; United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612), to limit the word “expenditure” to activity that does not involve First Amendment rights.2
The Act, as construed and applied, is a broadside assault on the freedom of political expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. It cannot possibly be saved by any of the facts conjured up by the Court. The answers to the questions reserved are quite irrelevant to the constitutional questions tendered under the First Amendment.
I would affirm the judgment dismissing the indictment.

 There are alternative measures appropriate to cure this evil which Congress has seen in the expenditure of union funds for political purposes. The protection of union members from the use of their funds in supporting a cause with which they do not sympathize may be cured by permitting the minority to withdraw their funds from that activity. The English have long required labor unions to permit a dissenting union member to refuse to contribute funds for political purposes. Trade Union Act, 1913, 2 & 3 Geo. V, c. 30; Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, 17 & 18 Geo. V, c. 22; Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1946, 9 & 10 Geo. VI, c. 52.

 If Congress is of the opinion that large contributions by labor unions to candidates for office and to political parties have had an undue influence upon the conduct of elections, it can prohibit such contributions. And, in expressing their views on the issues and candidates, labor unions can be required to acknowledge their authorship and support of those expressions. Undue influence, however, cannot constitutionally form the basis for making it unlawful for any segment of our society to express its views on the issues of a political campaign.