Being A Government Official Sucks

This post forwards a concern I have external to Shiffrin’s argument, but relevant when considering the implications of how she proposes government officials should communicate with the public. 

Shiffrin holds government officials (speaking in their capacity as government officials) to a higher standard in their speech than citizens. In one example of this higher standard, she argues that government officials seeking to criticize the Constitution or how citizens exercise rights must either “not speak in their capacity as governmental officials” or, if they do, “make clear what the extant protection is” with a (non-“fine print,” “rubber-stamped”) disclaimer (1004). She recognizes this imbalance in responsibility, reaffirming that “this requirement does burden the speech of government officials with higher standards than lay citizens, but that heightened burden is consistent with the special role of government officials” (1005). Can we not burden government officials to the point where no one wants to work for the public? Might further requirements for the speech of government officials, despite being defensible, threaten competition for public office and undermine democratic ideals?

Working for the government is often a thankless, grueling, and impossible job. While high-ranking officials may enjoy large staff to bear the brunt of these burdens, a vast majority of people classified under “government official,” at both the state and federal level, do not. I recently worked for the Massachusetts House of Representatives and learned that many officials who occupy elected and unelected roles work multiple jobs as their salary does not constitute a livable wage. They have hours-long commutes—sometimes multiple times per week—to assemble in-person. They are required to be responsive to constituents, lobbyists, committee assignments, and other various state officials. Elected officials run campaigns where they knock on doors, organize events, and solicit fundraising. They must adhere to hundreds of strictly-enforced regulations on campaign financing, acceptance of gifts, interactions with lobbyists, and use of public resources. In Massachusetts, where I worked, each representative was only allotted one paid staff member. Being a government official—especially at the state and local level—is a burdensome role with seemingly few benefits. For both elected and unelected roles, competition is necessary for democratic ideals. I want someone who represents my interests, and the more people that are campaigning or applying for a role, the more likely one of them fulfills this. I fear the more the role of the government official is burdened and constrained, the less competitive these roles become.

The additional burden that Shiffrin is asking to be placed upon government officials seems miniscule. But, one of the wonderful things about the First Amendment is that it allows one to speak or express themselves without needing to pause and consider whether or not what they are doing is lawful (in most cases). Now, imagine being a government official, who is already immensely busy and burdened, having to carefully consider everything you communicate qua government official to ensure it adheres to the “higher standards” that Shiffrin calls for. Regardless of whether it is justiciable or enforced privately, government officials—who are already tiptoeing through a minefield of rules, regulations, and responsibilities—must check themselves before they express themselves—something they did not have to do before. 

As much as I wish for a world where the speech of government officials is subject to strict fact-checking, disclaimers, and adherence to the special duties of being public officials, I fear that further burdening an already difficult role will undermine democratic values (through decreased competition) more than it will achieve them (through free speech protection).