Using the Secret Service to subsidize speech

 

President Obama and Michelle Obama flanked by Secret Service agents, 2017 (PHOTO: public domain).

A few hours after the apparent assassination attempt on Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, I saw Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie's tweet saying independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) deserved Secret Service protection.

President Biden had already granted it, and this was announced on Monday.

In one sense, I agree with the decision. Even if I ran for President as an independent or third-party candidate and were polling equally with RFK, I'd say RFK would deserve protection more than I do. His name, and the fame attached to it, would be the only reason, but it's sufficient.

In another sense, however, my skin crawls. At the core, what is happening here?

When Trump and now RFK travel and speak at rallies, the taxpayers are on the hook for their security. We're giving them a free platform in the most literal way "platform" can be used, short of actually being literal.

We are forced to subsidize their speech.

Many people despise RFK for his stance on vaccines, perhaps blaming him for the deaths of loved ones. Now, he'll get to say whatever he wants on their dime.

Trump has been called a Nazi and an insurrectionist. Whether he is or isn't is beside the point:  would you voluntarily give money to provide security for someone you thought was a Nazi insurrectionist? 

Every once in a while the subject of "public financing" of campaigns is promoted, and it always struck me as morally repugnant. Candidates should be free to say whatever they want, but nobody should be compelled to support what they say. 

"But wait!" you might say, "What about the President? Isn't it unfair that he gets Secret Service protection when he's campaigning if his opponents don't get it?'

Yes, yes it is unfair.

The President rarely needs to be anywhere but the White House, the Camp David retreat, and maybe foreign capitals for summits with other national leaders. City airports don't need to be shut down, freeways don't need to be closed, and city streets shouldn't need to be blocked as the President campaigns for a two-bit gubernatorial candidate.

Campaigning is not part of the President's job description. When he engages in activities outside of his official duties, he should pay for his own security or reimburse the Secret Service for expenses incurred. 

Likewise, as a former President, Trump is entitled to Secret Service protection, but he shouldn't be entitled to extra security when he goes wherever he wants to speak at large crowds. He ought to pay for that. 

Security expenses in political campaigns should be used from campaign funds. 

Otherwise, it's subsidized speech.

And subsidized speech is an attack on personal conscience. 

You may republish with attribution.

James Leroy Wilson writes The MVP Chase (subscribe) and JL Cells (subscribe) and is a monthly columnist at Meer. Thank you for your subscriptions and support! You may contact James for writing, editing, research, and other work: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.