This past weekend marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.  Protesters, dubbed Occupy the Courts, gathered at the Court to voice their disapproval of the decision:

As Institute for Justice campaign finance expert Paul Sherman explains in the video above:

The irony of those protests is that you had groups of people getting together to speak out against a Supreme Court decision that protected the right of people to get together and speak out.

Indeed, people should not lose their right to free speech simply by exercising their right to freely associate.   And when people group together—be it on the steps of a courthouse, in the form of a trade union or as a corporation—they don’t lose their freedom to speak out.

Occupy the Courts protesters also mistakenly believed that the Citizens United ruling held that “money is speech.”  In fact, the Court never said that.  Rather, it ruled correctly that money facilitates speech.  And if the government has the power to control how much money you can spend speaking, then it effectively can control your speech.

Importantly, the law in question in the Citizens United case empowered the government to fine and even imprison ordinary people for engaging in certain types of speech.   The government argued in court that it had the power to ban videos and books.  I don’t believe that many Americans, including the Occupy the Courts protesters, think the government should be in the business of banning books.

(more…)

Karen Sampson and her Colorado neighbors just won a serious victory for liberty.

In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Colorado’s disclosure laws for grassroots political groups.  This is a big deal.  As the Associated Press put it, “The issue is ripe for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The federal appellate court held that Karen and her neighbors in the tiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo., should not have been forced to register with the government and comply with burdensome campaign finance laws simply for opposing a ballot issue involving the annexation of their neighborhood.

I wrote previously at Big Government that Karen and her neighbors opposed an effort to annex their town into a neighboring city because it would raise their taxes without providing them benefits.  So they printed up fliers and yard signs.  And then they got sued.

Under what basis?  Colorado’s campaign finance laws, which state that any group of individuals that spends over $200 magically becomes an “issue committee” that is forced to register with the state.  Further, they had to track and report all their “contributions” and “expenditures” and disclose the identities of anyone who gave them money.

(more…)

Hey mom and dads, it’s election week!  Does your child like to argue?  Does he like to boss his younger siblings around?  Does he love the sound of his own voice?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, your child is a natural born politician.  Now to ensure his success in the political world, send him to Camp Politics for a three-week intensive training program:

Once he gets elected to office, the most important thing for him to learn is how to stay there.  If he does a bad job, people will want to get him out of office.  So your child will need to learn how to silence those that want to speak out against him.

Of course, this violates basic free speech rights.  But Camp Politics has figured out a sure-fire way around the First Amendment that means politics will remain a game for special interests and political insiders.

It’s called campaign finance laws.

We all know that speaking takes money.  And the only way ordinary Americans can speak out effectively about politics is to pool their resources with their friends and neighbors.  But campaign finance laws limit the amount of money people can spend on political ads and organizing and they wrap people in red tape to the point that they can’t even speak!

(more…)

There’s a new site to add to your blogroll:  Congress Shall Make No Law.

The site, which has the address makenolaw.org, empowers grassroots activists from around the country that are standing up and saying no to unconstitutional attacks on free speech coming in the guise of campaign finance reform.  The site explains all the latest news and events going on in this increasingly complex area of law.  All of the writers are First Amendment attorneys and experts at the Institute for Justice (IJ)—the libertarian law firm dedicated to striking down campaign finance laws in state and federal courts.

The unfortunate reality is this:  Campaign finance laws are a way to regulate speech and silence speakers.  And they have seriously negative impacts on everyday Americans.

Consider Karen Sampson of Parker North, Colorado:

(more…)

**Link Fixed**

Today the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.  This long overdue decision is a victory not only for Citizens United but also for the First Amendment.  The majority opinion clearly and decisively explained that “[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

The case decided this morning revolves around the 2007 film Hillary the Movie.  The film, which took an in-depth and critical look at the career of Hillary Clinton, was set to appear on cable television via video on demand during the Democratic presidential primary season in 2008.  The broadcast was prohibited by the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, because Citizens United was organized as a corporation and had accepted a small amount of contributions from corporations to finance the film.

The government walks down a very treacherous path when it attempts to regulate speech, whether on film, print, or television.  Previous case law including Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell vs. FEC had created a regulatory scheme so complex one dare not speak without consulting a lawyer.  Even then, one should only consult an election lawyer with years of experience because the rules are so complex and precise.  As a lawyer you’d think I’d welcome the business, but not at the expense of the First Amendment. (more…)

Before left-wing activist Bob Creamer escorted his wife, Illinois Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky to the Obama state dinner, before he penned his blue print for the socialist agenda from his federal prison cell, before he committed felony bank fraud and was indicted on 34 counts involving misuse of $2.4 million, this Saul Alinsky disciple reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars from a campaign finance scam that illegally funneled money from deep-pocket Democrat donors  and labor unions to targeted congressional campaigns.

Creamer left his position as head of the ACORN-affiliated Citizen Action/Illinois in 1997 after financial irregularities at the activist organization garnered the attention of federal investigators.  Despite the ongoing federal investigation, Creamer turned to political consulting, bringing his bare-knuckle ACORN tactics to bear on behalf of numerous Democratic candidates like indicted former Governor Rod Blagojevich.  In the 2002 election cycle, Creamer’s Strategic Consulting Group was paid over half a million dollars by the Blagojevich campaign.  Strategic Consulting also did campaign work for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and others, all while the feds pursued their criminal investigation.

During the period when Creamer was running Strategic Consulting Group the firm served as the primary vendor for several identically-structured campaign committees formed for the express purpose of supporting Democrat candidacies in circumvention of federal campaign laws.

(more…)

By including Democrat candidates for California elected offices as recommended users and omitting Republicans until only recently, Twitter has drawn the attention of those in government interested in opening the door to state or federal regulation of online campaign activity, including social networking sites.

Twitter’s announcement that it intends to do away with its suggested user list is a good idea, at least as it applies to candidates.  Through a system where corporate executives chose which individuals, including candidates, were recommended, the company put itself in the position of appearing to provide something of value to some candidates over others.  It should be no surprise that zealous bureaucrats might seize the opportunity to use this as an excuse to regulate the company’s product.

The notion that some government bureaucracy is going to be able to keep up with, let alone regulate, campaign activities online defies reality.

(more…)