BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

free speech Archive

Wednesday

6

September 2006

0

COMMENTS

Free Speech Or Speech Free?

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

Warning: you are entering a speech free zone.

As of Friday, when the 60-day blackout period for “electioneering communications” by nonprofit interest groups begins, political speech will enjoy less protection than dirty movies. While a sexually explicit film is protected by the First Amendment if it has some socially redeeming value, an “electioneering communication” is forbidden even if it deals with important and timely public policy issues.

Supporters of this ban, imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, say they want to eliminate “sham issue ads” that are aimed at electing or defeating a candidate and therefore should be funded only by political action committees subject to campaign contribution limits. But since the ban applies to any TV or radio spot that mentions a federal official who is up for re-election, it also prohibits genuine issue ads.

Club for Growth has a list of all the big government Republicans who helped make this attack on free speech possible.

More on the folly of McCain-Feingold.

Friday

25

August 2006

0

COMMENTS

Campaign Finance Reform In Practice

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

In Wisconsin we see exactly what it is that so-called campaign finance reform has really accomplished – the regulation of speech. Want to speak your mind about an upcoming election? Too bad, you can’t do it without court permission.

A pro-life group filed a motion Friday in district court to allow them to air a radio ad calling on Wisconsin citizens to contact Wisconsin Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold and Herbert Kohl and urge them to push the Child Custody Protection Act through conference committee.

Wisconsin Right to Life filed a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the District Court for the District of Columbia to allow them to air the ad because the state is currently in the blackout period mandated by the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law.

“Because Senator Kohl appears on the primary election ballot, permission is needed from the federal court to air grassroots lobbying ads mentioning his name, even though the radio ad has nothing to do with elections,” said James Bopp, Jr. counsel to Wisconsin Right to Life in a statement.

It should make no difference whether they mention a candidate or not as it’s, if the Constitution is to have any meaning at all, protected speech in either case. The period leading up to an election is precisely when political speech is most relevant and must be protected. The single minded fanaticism of McCain and his ill conceived legislation has led to a system of incumbent protections that hinder, rather than help, democracy.

Monday

26

June 2006

0

COMMENTS

SCOTUS Rejects Vermont Campaign Finance Law

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The Supreme Court decided Randall v. Sorrell today, a case involving Vermont’s campaign finance laws. Though the decision struck down Vermont’s campaign spending limits, it was not a decisive victory for free speech. Instead, Roberts and Alito, both in their first ruling on campaign finance, agreed that some campaign contribution limits are consistent with the First Amendment. More on that at SCOTUSblog.

The court did reject expenditure limits on candidates as unconstitutional, however. The court found that limits that are too low give unfair advantages to incumbents by “preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns.”

While this ruling is welcomed, what we really want to see is a challenge to the advertising restrictions of campaign finance that limit free speech at the time when it’s most vital to the exercise of core democratic rights, immediately before elections.