A commitment to the First Amendment should not be controversial

Across the country, I work with people and organizations that disagree profoundly about politics and public policy but share a basic principle: Americans must remain free to speak, associate, support causes and challenge those in power.

That principle is being tested in uncomfortable ways.

President Trump has threatened the Center for American Progress with a $5 billion lawsuit over a report questioning whether National Guard deployments reduced violent crime. He has also publicly singled out some of the organizations and individuals that have supported the progressive think tank.

The center has responded that disagreements over public policy should be resolved through “robust public debate, not through threats or intimidation.” Whether you agree with its politics or its conclusions is beside the point. On this principle, it is right.

Government officials should not use their power to intimidate private organizations because they dislike their research or policy positions. And people should not have to wonder whether supporting an organization that challenges a president, governor or attorney general will make them a target as well. But the principle thatthe Center for American Progress invokes should extend beyond this dispute.

Unfortunately, even as it defends its own ability to challenge political power, the Center for American Progress is promoting a state-level initiative that would prohibit other groups from doing the same thing in elections and ballot referenda. Called the Corporate Power Reset, the proposal would withdraw from corporations, including nonprofit corporations, the right to spend their resources on certain........

© The Hill