Posts Tagged ‘independent expenditures’

Brett Healy

‘Independent’ Group Stays Close to Moore Campaign

by Brett Healy
For a group that by law can’t coordinate with any political candidate or committee, the “We are Wisconsin’ PAC sure likes to stay close to Shelly Moore. How close?


Chris   Berg

Citizens United vs. FEC – Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights

by Chris Berg

**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.”

Supreme-Court

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…)

Robert Frommer

The Future of Campaign-Finance Laws: Citizens United is Just the Latest Battle in a Long-Running War

by Robert Frommer

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United—holding that the government may not use campaign finance laws to silence the political speech of corporations—is the most significant First Amendment decision of the past decade.  In holding that “the First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves,” the Court made it clear that the Constitution “entrust[s] the people to judge what is true and what is false.”  Freedom of speech means that everyone, including corporations, has the right to participate in the “open marketplace of ideas” that is “an essential mechanism of democracy.”

10231137A

But while Citizens United marks a major victory for First Amendment rights against expansive campaign finance regulation, the war rages on.  Politicians worked to silence corporations because they have the resources to speak effectively.  Politicians feared if this speech criticized them, it could threaten the one thing they care about most:  re-election.

(more…)